Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Sunderland Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA AND CHINA (TRANSPORT FACILITIES).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Burma what are the transport facilities between Burma and China; and whether steps are being taken to improve the present means of communication and to open up new ones?

The Under-Secretary of State for Burma (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 6th February for information in regard to the Burma sector of the new highway from Lashio, the terminus of the Burma railway, to Kunming. There is also a connection, a portion of which for the present is only practicable in dry weather, between Bhamo and this road, and, in addition, there is the traditional caravan route between Bhamo and Tengyueh. Reciprocal arrangements have recently been concluded with the Chinese Government for the establishment of an air route between Burma and Kunming and arrangements are under consideration for the inauguration of services.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the occupation of the island of Hainan by Japan recently, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of these communications between Burma and China has given India a position of superlative strategic importance and potential commercial importance; and have the Government any plans in view with regard to improving these communications?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: In view of the very wide nature of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, perhaps he would put in on the Paper.

Sir Stanley Reed: Has my hon. and gallant Friend any information that the prospect of further Chinese penetration of Burma along these roads is causing serious apprehension among the people of that country?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I have no information to that effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement with regard to the relations between the British Concession at Tientsin and the Japanese authorities in that area; and whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government are determined to protect British interests in the Concession against either military action or economic pressure?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): On 14th December last barriers were placed by the Japanese military authorities in Tientsin at all exits from the British and French Concessions, and movements of persons and merchandise were subjected to considerable restrictions. The reason given for the measures in question was the necessity for taking precautions against anti-Japanese activities. Representations were immediately made to the local Japanese authorities and to the Japanese Government, and the situation will continue to be closely watched.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister whether the approach to Canton by the Pearl River has been closed to commercial shipping by the Japanese authorities, and, if so, for how long; and what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government to protect British interests?

Mr. Butler: The river is at present closed. His Majesty's Government have made representations to both the Governments which have at different times been responsible for the closure, and they propose to continue, as at present, to take all possible steps to secure the reopening of the river.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister what point has been reached in the negotiations with the Japanese Government on the question of British interests in the Shanghai-Nanking, Shanghai-Hangchow, and the Peiping-Mukden railways, particularly with regard to the currency in which the revenue is being collected; the provision being made to secure payment of interest to British bondholders; and the inspection of the Shanghai-Nanking line by British engineers?

Mr. Butler: The position remains as stated in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 21st December. The question has been under re-examination with a view to deciding what further action would be likely to be effective.

Mr. Moreing: May I ask my right hon. Friend to press this matter, because when I asked a question about it on 21st December, I was told that the subject was then under consideration? Cannot he do anything about it?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly do what I can.

Mr. Moreing: asked the Prime Minister what has been the result of the negotiations with the Japanese Government on the subject of their encroachment on the administration of the International Settlement in Shanghai; and whether arrangements have yet been made for the restoration of the Yangtzepoo and Hongkew districts to the control of the Shanghai Municipal Council?

Mr. Butler: The question of the resumption of control by the Shanghai Municipal Council over the districts named is now under discussion between the Council and the local Japanese authorities. Pending the result of these discussions it is not proposed to approach the Japanese Government in the matter.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Japanese authorities, in pressing foreign bankers in

China to recognise the currency of their Chinese Federal Reserve Bank, have refused to authorise the Federal Reserve Bank and the Japanese banks to sell foreign exchange against Federal Reserve Bank currency; and whether he will represent to the Japanese Government the futility of asking for the recognition of a currency which is not permitted to be a medium of exchange?

Mr. Butler: As stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 16th November last, His Majesty's Government are aware of the position. They do not feel that representations of the nature suggested would serve any useful purpose at this juncture, since the Japanese Government are already aware of their view that the setting-up of an inconvertible currency in North China is calculated to be injurious to the interests of all Powers trading there. The matter will, however, be borne in mind.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received any reply from the Japanese Government to the open door note of the British Government, with regard to China; and if so, whether he can state its nature?

Mr. Bartlett: asked the Prime Minister whether any reply has yet been received from the Japanese Government in reply to the note of His Majesty's Government of 14th January, 1939, stating that they are not prepared to accept or recognise changes brought about by force; and, if so, what are the terms of the reply?

Mr. Butler: No reply has yet been received.

Captain Macdonald: Will the right hon. Gentleman press the Japanese Government for a reply in view of the long period which has elapsed since the note was sent?

Mr. Butler: I think that the Japanese Government are aware of our wish to have a reply as soon as possible.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received full information from His Majesty's consul-general at Shanghai of the formation of the Yangtze River Steamship Company, under Japanese control; whether such information points to an


attempt to exercise a monopoly of shipping on the Yangtze; and what action he has taken to protect British shipping?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai reports that he has received information to the effect that little headway has been made with the proposed formation of the Yangtze River Steamship Company, and that it appears doubtful whether the new company has yet acquired any tonnage. In other respects the situation as regards navigation on the Yangtze remains unchanged. Renewed representations were made to the Japanese Government by His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo on 14th January last.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Japanese forces have been landed on the island of Hainan; and whether he will immediately consult with the French Government with a view to the joint protection of Anglo-French interests?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend is already in touch with the French Government on this matter.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask whether the Japanese Government gave any previous notice of their intention to occupy the island of Hainan, and whether they have given the British or French Governments any information as to the duration of their occupation?

Mr. Butler: In view of the serious nature of this matter I should require to have notice of those two important questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH LIBRARY OF INFORMATION).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the necessity of better informing public opinion in the United States of America on British achievements, he will consider extending the scope and powers of the British Library of Information situated in the city of New York?

Mr. Butler: The British Library of Information in New York was established in 1920. It is not concerned with propaganda and its scope is strictly limited to answering requests from persons and in-

stitutions in the United States of America for authoritative information about the British Empire and its affairs. Since its institution the Library has considerably expanded in order to meet the increasing demands for its services. I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind as regards the extension of its scope and powers; but it should be made clear that His Majesty's Government have no intention of making any change in the policy of limiting its functions to the supply of information on demand.

Mr. Davies: In view of the fact that the United States is such a large country, would it not be possible to have branches of this library in Chicago and San Francisco?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly investigate that point.

Mr. Mathers: If information is really given by the British Government to this organisation, would it not be well to have a branch in London to which Members of Parliament could apply?

Mr. H. G. Williams: And Edinburgh?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (INDIAN SUBJECTS, EXPULSION).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now give further information respecting the arrest and deportation from Paris of three British Indian subjects?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day) on 6th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will assure the House that, in view of the changed military situation in Spain, His Majesty's Government do not contemplate recognising the Spanish insurgent authorities as the de facto or de jure Government of Spain?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): It would, obviously, be impossible for me to give such an assurance as the hon. Member asks for in a situation which is


changing very rapidly. I may say, however, that His Majesty's Government, who are in close touch with the French Government, have taken no decision as yet on the matter.

Mr. Cocks: In view of the fact that the Republican Government is a member of the League of Nations, will His Majesty's Government consult the League before action is taken which may cause great resentment among great masses of the British people and render all hope of national unity an impossibility?

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House itself will be consulted before any such fundamental change in policy is made?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the Government must take the responsibility.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, inasmuch as he has said that he would not grant belligerent rights to General Franco while support was still being given and Italian troops were present in Spain, that will also apply to any de jure recognition of the Spanish Government?

The Prime Minister: I think I should understand the right hon. Gentleman's question better if he put it down.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will seek to move the Adjournment of the House at the end of Questions, in order to raise this matter.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the magnitude of German aerial and naval preparations in the Basque country and Galicia; and whether he proposes to make any representations on the matter to Berlin?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The information in my Noble Friend's possession does not confirm the accuracy of reports which have been circulated regarding such preparations.

Mr. Adams: If I furnish my right hon. Friend with further evidence, will he find time to consider it?

Mr. Butler: I shall certainly consider any evidence which the hon. Gentleman puts before me.

Mr. R. Gibson: Have the Government received any guarantee with regard to Germany's evacuation of Spain at the conclusion of hostilities?

Mr. Butler: I must have notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has been informed by the French Government of the results of the interviews between M. Leon Bérard and General Jordana on the subject of the retention of foreign troops in Spain?

Mr. Butler: As M. Bérard's mission was an unofficial one, I am not able to make a statement on the subject. The hon. and gallant Member may, however, rest assured that there is the closest contact between His Majesty's Government and the French Government on all matters concerning the Spanish situation.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Do the Government propose to make any representations to the French Government about this matter, in view of the important bearing it has on the recognition of General Franco?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's question and his supplementary question both refer to a mission which was unofficial, and I regret that I can give no further information about it.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the 11th, 13th and 15th International Brigades which were fighting in the last week of January, months after Mussolini had declared that the last Italian troops had left Spain?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that M. Bérard has reported directly to the French Government; and is it accurate, therefore, to describe the mission as unofficial?

Mr. Butler: I can only give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information in my possession, which is that the mission is unofficial.

Captain McEwen: Is it not a fact, according to Press reports, that the mission has been a great success?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement


on the despatch of His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" to Minorca carrying as passenger a representative of General Franco?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister upon what representations the decision to send His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" to Minorca with a representative of General Franco was taken; whether the Spanish Government was informed of the action being taken, and whether the action was taken in consultation with the French Government?

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister why General Franco's envoy to Minorca to demand the surrender of the island was sent in a British ship, which gave rise to a widespread impression that Britain was backing the demand for surrender?

The Prime Minister: At the request of the local authorities in Palma, His Majesty's Government undertook to convey a senior officer to Minorca in order that he might negotiate for the peaceful surrender of that island. His Majesty's Government had previously been informed that unless they could make negotiation possible by providing means of communication, an attack would be launched on Minorca. Thereupon, seeing that a British ship provided the only available means of making peaceable contact with Minorca, and being anxious that unnecessary bloodshed should be avoided, the offer of the services of His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" was made. His Majesty's Government consulted neither the Spanish Government nor the Burgos authorities, though the local authorities at Palma were, it is understood, in touch with General Franco. The French Government, who were kept fully informed, approved the action of His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" duly proceeded to Minorca, and it is understood that the surrender of the island has now taken place. His Majesty's Government have taken no part in the negotiations and have no responsibility for them. His Majesty's Ship "Devonshire" has taken the opportunity of embarking some 450 refugees who considered that they might run a risk of reprisals. These refugees have now been landed at Marseilles, in co-operation with the French authorities.

Mr. Henderson: Do His Majesty's Government propose to make any representations to the Italian Government, in view of the fact that at least six air attacks were made on the island of Minorca by Italian squadrons during the time that the "Devonshire" was there?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, but representations have been made to General Franco's Government.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us no further information with regard to this bombing? We understand from the Prime Minister that the "Devonshire" was sent in order to avoid bloodshed, and that it was done at the request of the authorities on General Franco's side, and has he no explanation as to how it came about that attacks were made at that time?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps I had better read the telegram which was received from our Consul at Palma on the subject. It says:
The Nationalist senior naval officer who takes charge of things in Admiral Moreno's absence authorises me to quote him as stating officially that the bombardment of Port Mahon was in disobedience of orders and is very much regretted. He has promised a written reply on Monday, and I will telegraph contents.

Mr. Attlee: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why no contact was made with the Republican authorities, seeing that the right hon. Gentleman is against intervention? Was not this a form of intervention?

The Prime Minister: At the time it would have been very difficult to find the Spanish Government. They were scattered about in different parts of Spain, and as we were anxious to avoid bloodshed, it was necessary to act quickly.

Miss Wilkinson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the mere fact that General Franco's envoy was taken in a British ship would give added prestige to that envoy and would give to the authorities in Minorca the idea that the British Government as well was demanding the surrender of Minorca, and does he consider that that is part of non-intervention?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that that is the view of the hon. Lady—

Mr. Cocks: And of all of us.

The Prime Minister: —but the position of His Majesty's Government was made perfectly clear, and I do not think there was any misunderstanding about it.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any assurances from the Italian Government that no Italian troops will land on the island of Minorca, and that no Italian ships will use Port Mahon?

The Prime Minister: No specific assurance has been given recently on that subject, but, of course, the general assurances of which the House is aware still stand.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: In view of the difficulty of communicating with the Spanish Government, was any communication made to the Spanish Ambassador in London, as a matter of courtesy?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do not the general guarantees given by the Italian Government about Minorca apply also to Majorca, and in view of the fact that Italian planes and ships have been using Majorca for a long time, would it not be desirable to ask for a specific guarantee with regard to Minorca now?

Commander Marsden: Will there be any opportunity for this House to show to the captain and ship's company of the "Devonshire" its great appreciation of the efficient way in which they have carried out their duty?

Sir A. Sinclair: If that is done, will there be an opportunity for the House to show that it shares the indignation of the Admiral at the action of the Italian aeroplanes in bombing the place during the time when the negotiations were going on?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Does not the fact that Minorca was bombed by Italian aircraft while these negotiations were in progress dispose once for all of the contention that these Italian aircraft are under the control of General Franco and not under the control of Signor Mussolini?

The Prime Minister: I have given the telegram which was received from our Consul at Palma, and I do not think I can add anything to it.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the "Devonshire" took off all the refugees from Minorca who wished to leave that island?

The Prime Minister: I could not say without notice.

Sir H. Croft: If my right hon. Friend ever gets an application from the Republican Government in Madrid or elsewhere for a message of peace, will he grant facilities for that emissary to go?

The Prime Minister: We shall do everything we can to assist in avoiding bloodshed.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large number of General Franco's supporters who, as refugees, were given protection in the British Consulate in the early days of General Franco's rebellion, and who were later assisted to leave Spain on British vessels, he will now, in the interests of impartiality, see that instructions are given for leaders of the Spanish Government to be offered the same service in case of need?

Mr. Butler: While I cannot agree that the position as regards the sheltering of refugees in British Consulates has been as stated in the hon. Member's question, I can say that such facilities as have previously been given for the evacuation of Spanish subjects of both sides in His Majesty's ships will, if circumstances permit, continue to be granted.

Miss Wilkinson: Do I understand from the first part of the reply that the right hon. Gentleman has no statement or report from the British Consul about Franco refugees who were fed and kept in the British Consulate? There is no secret about it; has not the right hon. Gentleman any report?

Mr. Butler: I gave the hon. Lady the information in my possession. I will certainly look into any information she may place before me.

Miss Wilkinson: Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers that I gave him information 13 months ago?

Mr. Butler: I was not in office 13 months ago.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the appalling conditions of Spanish refugees in France,


he will make arrangements to send food, technical, medical, and other assistance to help in dealing with the problem; and whether he proposes to give a larger amount of money than so far has been given by the British Government?

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister how much of the grants, totalling £40,000, promised by His Majesty's Government to the International Commission for Child Refugees in Spain has been paid over; and whether, in view of the great increase in the need, His Majesty's Government will make further grants, and will also assist the French Government in the task of coping with the great number of refugees from Spain by sending such supplies of food, medical and other necessaries, camp equipment, medical and nursing personnel, as may be required?

Mr. Butler: Following consultation with the French Government, His Majesty's Government decided that they could most effectively contribute towards meeting the immediate needs of the refugees in question by means of a further grant to the International Commission for the Assistance of Child Refugees. They accordingly contributed £20,000 last month and they have now contributed a further £40,000; and they are prepared, if the need still exists, to contribute a further £40,000 on or after 31st March, thus bringing their total contribution since the beginning of the present year up to £100,000. His Majesty's Government will also be ready at any time to give careful consideration to any request received from the French Government for assistance in other forms.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that there are nearly half a million refugees on French soil and that they are directly due to the Government's policy of non-intervention—[Interruption.]

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports from those on the spot in the neighbourhood of the French frontier last week were to the effect that there was a deplorable lack of medical necessaries and personnel, as a result of which many people died, and could he not initiate, if the French Government approved, some action on the part of the Red Cross with the support of the Government so that supplies can be sent? What is the Red Cross for if it is never on the spot?

Mr. G. Strauss: Why is the last gift of money only to be sent on or after 31st March when the need is so great?

Mr. Hannah: Have the Russian Government made any contribution?

Mr. Butler: The need in the south of France is obviously most urgent, and the Government are fully aware of it. We understand that our recent gift of money, which has just been given, has been much appreciated by the International Commission, and I hope that it will encourage other Governments to give further contributions. Contributions depend on other Governments besides ours, and I am sure that if the need becomes more urgent His Majesty's Government will give further consideration to all the points that have been put.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister how many British boats have been detained or searched by the Spanish insurgent authorities since the beginning of the year?

Mr. Butler: One, Sir.

Miss Rathbone: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied from the report of the International Commission that the Spanish Government has carried out its voluntary undertaking last July to dispense with its foreign volunteers; how many of these have hitherto been evacuated from Spain; how many remain; and whether he will give an assurance that steps will be taken to ensure that all those still in Spain will be repatriated or enabled to reach places of safety under conditions not less favourable than they would have been entitled to under the British plan adopted by the Non-Intervention Committee if General Franco's refusal had not prevented it coming into operation?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Lady to the resolution adopted in January by the Council of the League of Nations. As further groups of volunteers are still being evacuated, I cannot give any totals beyond those already communicated to the House pending the receipt of a further report from the League Commission. While His Majesty's Government will do all they can to obtain the evacuation of the remaining volunteers under the most favourable conditions possible, I am unable to give any assurance on a matter which depends largely on the actions of other Governments.

Miss Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to that part of the question which asks whether the International Commission's report has satisfied the Government that the Spanish Government have honourably carried out their undertakings?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Lady to my Noble Friend's remarks at Geneva.

Sir H. Croft: Is there any truth in the rumour that 30,000 reservists of a certain friendly State received an amnesty because they were in Spain?

Mr. Butler: I have no information on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCARNO TREATY.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister particulars of the discussions that have taken place between the original participating governments concerned in the Locarno Treaty for the purpose of arriving at a basis by which an amendment can be agreed upon in order to secure a guarantee of assistance against invasion or aggressive attack?

Mr. Butler: The general position as regards the Locarno Treaty remains as stated in the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) on 7th April, 1938.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any variations have been agreed between the different Governments concerned?

Mr. Butler: The answer to which I have referred the hon. Gentleman is a rather long one, and perhaps he would be good enough to study it.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANZIG.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Prime Minister whether any steps have been taken to safeguard the position of the Jewish minority in Danzig by any of the States signatory to the convention setting up the free city?

Mr. Butler: The position of the Jewish and other minorities in Danzig has been the constant concern of the High Commissioner for the League of Nations, who has reported from time to time to the Committee of Three appointed by the

Council to follow the situation in Danzig. The High Commissioner and the Committee of Three have taken, and will continue to take, all the steps that may be possible in this connection.

Mr. Dalton: Is it not clear that no active steps whatever have been taken recently in this matter?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. The Committee of Three and the High Commissioner have been in touch with the situation.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any report from the Consul-General at Danzig showing that the Jews have been subjected to the same persecution there as in Germany?

Mr. Butler: I think there is no doubt that the constitution has been violated in that respect.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANUBIAN COUNTRIES (ECONOMIC SITUATION).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to improving trade and financial relations between this country and the countries of Southeast Europe, he will assure the House that His Majesty's Government retain their interest in the affairs of South-east Europe and that they are considering taking any necessary action in order to secure an improvement in such relations?

Mr. Butler: As was stated in the reply given to the hon. Member on 2nd November last, the policy of His Majesty's Government is to maintain, and so far as possible, to develop the trade between the United Kingdom and the Danubian countries, and so to contribute to the improvement of the economic situation of these countries.

Mr. Henderson: Do His Majesty's Government propose to take any active steps to assist trade relations with countries in South-eastern Europe?

Mr. Butler: I think the fact that we are willing to do our best is made clear in my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHO-SLOVAKIA.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any report from His Majesty's representative at Prague on the working of the Option Treaty for the exchange of populations,


made between Germany and Czecho-Slovakia in pursuance of the Munich Agreement; and, if not, whether he will call for such a report?

Mr. Butler: According to information received from His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, it seems unlikely that the Agreement will result in any large-scale movement of population either into or out of Czecho-Slovakia. It is not possible, however, to give details of the working of the Agreement at the present stage, since the time limit for the exercise of the right of option does not expire until 29th March.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that when we compelled Dr. Benes to adopt the Anglo-French plan we promised a chance of escape to Czechs left in Germany?

Mr. Butler: The option agreement remains in force, but I cannot give any further information at the present time.

Mr. Benn: Is it not a fact that it expires on 29th March, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any Czechs have had a chance of escape under these option clauses?

Mr. Butler: They all have the chance. Anybody who has the right to opt has the chance to opt under the agreement.

Captain P. Macdonald: Is it not a fact that Dr. Benes himself has opted to leave his country and is now in the United States of America?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that both Germans and Czechs who are in Sudetenland have not been able to opt up to the present time, and will the Government call for a special report on that question?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has no information to show that persons desiring to exercise the right of option which they enjoy by virtue of the agreement have been prevented from doing so.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these potential optists are already in concentration camps?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am not responsible for those matters.

Mr. Benn: Of course you are.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (JEWS).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to recent regulations under which German Jewish refugees in Italy, unless they leave that country before 12th March, will have all their property confiscated while they themselves will be liable to imprisonment; and whether, as many of these refugees are desirous of settling in British Colonies or in the Dominions, he will arrange for the expediting of the granting of visas, etc., to enable these people to leave the country within the specified time?

Mr. Butler: A decree-law published in Rome on 19th November last provides that foreign Jews who do not leave Italy by the 12th March are liable to expulsion, imprisonment up to three months or a fine up to 5,000 lire. The succeeding article enumerates as exceptions those who have completed their 65th year, and those married to Italians. Applications from persons emigrating from Italy for admission to the United Kingdom will receive very careful consideration, the grant of visas in such cases being on the same conditions as those governing the admission of other refugees. The admission of refugees to the Dominions is a matter for the Dominion Governments concerned. The admission of immigrants to the Colonial Dependencies is similarly governed by the laws and regulations of the various territories, which, generally speaking, apply to all immigrants alike, whether British or foreign. While Colonial Governments have been asked to give as sympathetic consideration as they can to applications received from refugees who are likely to prove good and useful citizens, it would not be possible to suggest that special facilities should be accorded to refugees from any particular country.

Mr. Harvey: In view of the urgency of the need, is it not possible to expedite the visas for trans-migrants who are not intending to reside in this country?

Mr. Butler: I will certainly look into that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIA (BRITISH REPRESENTATION).

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that a German


ambassador has been appointed to Saudi Arabia; and whether any consideration has been given to the desirability of raising the British diplomatic representative in that territory to a similar rank?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I understand that the German Minister in Bagdad has also been accredited as German Minister to Saudi Arabia. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Prime Minister whether any further progress has been made concerning an international air disarmament conference; and whether he has been, or will be, in communication with appropriate Governments respecting the matter?

The Prime Minister: The necessary survey by the various Departments of His Majesty's Government of this highly complex problem is still in progress, and accordingly I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Would not the right hon. Gentleman at least inform the House with regard to the last part of my question?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, we shall not be in communication until we have made up our minds as to the best course in this matter.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not made up his mind as to the best way by which disarmament can be brought about?

The Prime Minister: That is exactly what I said.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the compilation of a register showing every war-disabled pensioner who is not in employment, followed by an examination of the health and employment records of all those unemployed for a period of 12 months or longer; and whether, in all cases where the war disablement and resultant circumstances are the major factors contributing to a state of permanent incapacity, provision shall be made for that condition direct from State

funds of such sums as will, when added to the pension, ensure adequate maintenance for the disabled man?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have no machinery available to institute or maintain so extensive an inquiry as that suggested. With regard to the last part of the question, the Royal Pensions Warrants already provide full compensation for permanent incapacity resulting directly from disability caused by war service and, having regard to the other social services in which disabled men share on specially advantageous terms, I do not think that there are adequate reasons for altering the basis of compensation in the manner suggested.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are in this country thousands of men who gave service during the War who are now suffering from extreme poverty and neglect; and, if he is aware of that, is he not prepared to bring into existence machinery to inquire into how that neglect and poverty can be overcome?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I have given the problem of unemployment among disabled pensioners much consideration, and although I have no power to provide work for them direct yet, thanks to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour, the King's Roll Committee, the British Legion and local authorities, I have met with considerable success in finding them employment. At the last count, in October, the percentage of unemployment among disabled pensioners was 7.8 per cent., compared with 14 per cent. in the case of all insured persons.

Mr. Gallacher: But is the Minister not aware that unemployment is rapidly increasing and that among ex-service men the increase is exceptionally great? Will he deny that this problem is there, and, if not, will he not take steps to set up machinery such as I have asked for?

Mr. Ramsbotham: I am aware of the problem and am doing my very best to deal with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

RUMANIA.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is proposed to send a trade mission to Rumania in the near future?

Mr. R. S. Hudson (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): At the present moment I can only inform the hon. Member that the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Bellenger: When the right hon. Gentleman is giving consideration to this matter, will he consider the possibility of himself accompanying a mission of this nature?

EXPORT CREDITS (CHINA).

Mr. Viant: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, what sum, if any, has been put to the credit of the Chinese Government out of the fund to be created under the Export Credit Act?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 7th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr. Garro Jones) I would add that the Export Guarantees Bill, to which I assume the question refers, does not create any fund from which sums can be placed at the disposal of a foreign administration. The Bill provides for guarantees to be given to or for the benefit of United Kingdom exporters for the purpose of encouraging this country's export trade.

SPAIN.

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has any information to show the amount of outstanding debts due from the Burgos authorities to British industrialists in this country?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Under the import and exchange permit system in operation in Nationalist territory, foreign currency in respect of imports from this country has in general been punctually transferred and, apart from some debts which arose owing to the confusion at the beginning of the civil war, I am not aware of outstanding debts in this category of any great importance. I am unable, however, to estimate at present the sums accumulated in Nationalist Spain by British enterprises and awaiting transfer, or the sums that may become due in respect of compensation for damage. There are, however, large sums outstanding in respect of trade and other debts from before the civil war. This question and the whole

question of payment of claims against the Spanish authorities will be taken up in due course by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Griffiths: I received a letter this morning from the right hon. Gentleman's Department before I left Yorkshire asking me to postpone this question, which was going to the President of the Board of Trade, but I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — FARRIERS AND BLACKSMITHS.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the communication from the Newcastle Emlyn branch of the National Master Farriers and Blacksmiths Association regarding the unsatisfactory state of their trade; and whether he is prepared to agree to the suggestions the association put forward in their memorandum in view of the importance of the blacksmith service in a national emergency?

The Minister of Agriculture (Major Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith): I have seen the communication referred to and the reply that was sent on 31st January. I regret that there are no funds at my disposal out of which financial assistance could be given to those engaged in the smithing trade. As regards the other matters dealt with in the correspondence I am asking the Rural Industries Bureau to consider, in consultation with the local Rural Community Council, whether there is any useful advice or other assistance they can render to blacksmiths in Cardiganshire.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ANIMAL MEDICINES.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the heavy loss caused to farmers by the sale of ineffective or fraudulent animal medicines, drenches, and the like; whether his attention has been drawn to the beneficent effects in South Africa of Act No. 21 of 1917, and Act No. 13 of 1929, which comprehensively deals with this evil; and whether he will consider setting up a departmental committee to advise him as to the need for similar legislation in this country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware that the claims made in respect of some of


the animal medicines and the like on the market are exaggerated, but I have no means of estimating the losses suffered in consequence. I am acquainted with the relevant legislation in the Union of South Africa, but I have no information as to its effects. As regards the last part of the question, I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.

Mr. Hopkin: Does that reply mean that nothing at all will be done to prevent fraudulent advertisements regarding patent medicines for animals?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have told the hon. Member that I will bear his suggestion in mind.

DAMAGE BY MOLES, WALES.

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the enormous damage done to land in West Wales by moles, and to the high charges made for substitutes for strychnine, making the use of such substitutes almost prohibitive to farmers; and will he take steps to enable farmers to procure sufficient quantities of strychnine to clear the moles from their land?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: A complaint has recently been received from one farmer in West Wales about the damage caused by moles and the high cost of substitutes for strychnine used in the destruction of moles. The view hitherto held by my Department is that red squill, which can be obtained easily and cheaply and is comparatively harmless to other animals, is an effective substitute, but I am arranging for field experiments to be undertaken to test the effectiveness of this and other substitutes for strychnine. As regards the second part of the question, for the reasons stated in the reply which my predecessor gave to the hon. Member on 28th July last, I should not feel justified in asking the Poisons Board to recommend the relaxation of the present rule with a view of enabling farmers to obtain strychnine for mole destruction.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether hydrocyanic acid is used for the extermination of moles as it is for rabbits?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I could not say.

IMPORTED CHEESE (MARKING).

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he

has considered the complaints by makers and factors of cheese with regard to the detriment to English producers caused by so much cheese being imported from the Dominions and foreign countries and sold on the counters as Cheddar and Cheshire; and whether he proposes to make a marking order under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, making it compulsory for imported cheese to bear an indication of the country of its origin?

Sr. R. Dorman-Smith: Representations have been made from time to time regarding the sale in this country of imported cheese described as Cheddar or Cheshire. It is, however, an offence under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, to sell or expose for sale in the United Kingdom any imported goods to which is applied the name of any place or district in the United Kingdom, unless the name is accompanied by an indication of the origin of the article. As regards a Marking Order, the Act provides that before an Order in Council can be made requiring the marking of any class of imported goods with an indication of origin, an application for an Order shall be made by substantially representative interests, and the application must then form the subject of a public inquiry by the Standing Committee set up for the purpose. I have, therefore, no power of initiative in the matter.

SUGAR-BEET CLAIM (TRIBUNAL'S REPORT).

Mr. Ballenger: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has received a report from the Fleming Committee on the sugar-beet claim against Oxford University?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The Tribunal presided over by Lord Fleming has awarded that of the total sum of £75,771 claimed by the University there should be contributed by the Ministry the sum of £51,584, leaving the sum of £24,187 to be borne by the University, and Parliament will be asked in the Estimates for the ensuing year to provide the funds to enable the award to be implemented.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the large amount of public money which is to be spent in connection with this matter will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman publish the report of the Tribunal and, if possible, the evidence which came before the Tribunal?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I will consider that.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) ACT.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the number of complaints regarding the non-observance of the Agricultural Wages Act and the orders made thereunder continued to increase down to the end of 1937, and that the amount recovered in respect of arrears of wages as a result of complaints is many times greater than the amount recovered as a result of test inspections; and whether he will give instructions for more test inspections to be carried out so as to reduce the necessity for individual complaints?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware that the number of complaints regarding nonobservance of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act continued to increase down to the end of 1937, but it has since shown a diminution, and I do not consider that there is any justification for the issue of the instructions suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Adamson: Could not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman arrange for a number of inspections in order to ensure that the administration of this Measure is effective?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: We do have as many test inspections as we can. There are 18 inspectors and one superintendent-inspector. The matter is kept carefully under review, and if other cases arise which make it necessary to increase the staff I shall certainly consider doing so.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in 1936 and 1937 permits of exemption from the minimum wage requirements of the Agricultural Wages Act were granted on grounds of infirmity due to age in the case of 2,587 male workers, of whom 1,553 were over 70 years of age; and whether he is taking any steps to facilitate the retirement of these aged and infirm men from the industry with adequate retiring allowances or pensions?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I imagine that the hon. Member has in mind the provision of financial assistance by the State in addition to the existing

old age pension scheme. If so, the answer to this part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Adamson: Seeing that there is such a large percentage of exemptions of aged persons, could not the Minister make representations to the Treasury on this question of pensions?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: This problem affects other industries besides agriculture, and it is a question of policy.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that as a result of prosecutions for infringements of the Agricultural Wages Act in Gloucestershire and Somerset in 1936–37, orders were made for the payment of arrears of wages totalling over £160 to seven workers; whether these prosecutions were made as a result of complaints received or of test inspections; that the inspector for the district made test inspections at only two farms employing a total of two workers in Gloucestershire, and 16 farms employing a total of 28 workers in Somerset; and whether he is satisfied that adequate steps are being taken to secure the observance of the Act in these two counties?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The prosecutions to which the hon. Member refers were instituted as a result of complaints made to my Department. Test inspections were carried out as stated and I am satisfied that the steps which are being taken to secure the observance of the Act in the counties concerned are adequate. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my predecessor to a question which he asked on 12th December.

BACON FACTORIES.

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that men are unemployed in bacon-curing factories at Bilston because the Pig Marketing Board cannot deliver the pigs; and what action does he propose to take?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am aware that some curers have complained that they are unable to obtain all the pigs they want, but I would point out that in view of the comparative shortage of pigs just now the curing industry cannot expect to be receiving as many pigs as in recent years when the pig population was larger.


The distribution among curers of the available supply of pigs is a matter primarily for the Bacon Development Board. I have no power to intervene.

Mr. Hannah: Is the Minister aware that the curers of Bilston say that they could get all the pigs they want if they were allowed to buy them in the open market?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have had this information.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the information available to his Department gives any indication as to whether bacon factories in rural areas can, in general, operate with the same efficiency as those in consuming centres where ample labour, power, and distributive facilities are available?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I have no information which would suggest that bacon factories in rural areas operate more or less efficiently than those in consuming centres.

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the artificial protection which is given to inefficient bacon factories as a result of the present restrictions imposed on the imports of bacon into this country, he can state what success has been achieved up to date in working out a system of rationalisation designed to eliminate as far as possible the more inefficient of these factories, and to reduce the average cost of bacon production in this country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I understand that a draft factory rationalisation scheme has been prepared and is at present under consideration by the Bacon Marketing Board.

MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of his desire that there should be an early extension of the system of Empire commodity councils to ensure better co-operation between home and Dominion producers, he will arrange for early consideration to be given to the establishment of such a council to deal with the marketing of milk products in this country; and whether, to assist to that end, he will take the necessary action to bring into being the Milk Products Marketing Scheme, which has been before his Department for a considerable period?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 9th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan) and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish). With regard to the first part of the question, I would add that a conference has now been called representative of all the chief suppliers of milk products to the United Kingdom market, to discuss the general situation and measures that can be taken to restore stability to the market.

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that one of the principal difficulties lying in the way of expanding the consumption of liquid milk in this country is the unwillingness of the medical profession to co-operate until arrangements have been made to ensure a milk supply that is bacteriologically pure or pasteurised, he will consider the desirability of calling an early conference with representatives of the medical profession to ascertain on what basis it is possible to obtain co-operation in this matter?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health recently received a deputation from the British Medical Association, the Society of Medical Officers of Health and the Joint Tuberculosis Council, who laid before him their views on the necessity for pasteurisation. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was present, and I will confer with my right hon. Friend as to the prospects of useful results being achieved by such a conference as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.

Mrs. Tate: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that pasteurisation kills not only the vitamins but the hormones in milk, and will he do nothing to discourage that pernicious practice?

Captain P. Macdonald: Is the Minister aware that the attitude of many of these local authorities and medical officers of health is influenced by the fact that they get no lead from the Ministry of Health in this matter, and will he confer with the Minister of Health in order to see that some definite lead is given and no dog-in-the-manger attitude is adopted towards the question of pasteurisation?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I realise that there is more than one opinion on this question, and I will have a consultation with my hon. and gallant Friend on the matter.

ALLOTMENTS.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give an estimate of the total acreage devoted to allotment cultivation, the proportion of such land owned by local authorities, and the approximate annual amount and value of produce therefrom; whether the acreage for allotments has declined during the last year and the preceding five years; and whether he proposes to take any action to assist the development of allotment cultivation?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question contains a number of figures which, with his permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the question, I regard allotments as a valuable source of food supply, as well as a means of healthy and useful recreation, and I would urge local authorities to make the fullest use of the powers entrusted to them by Parliament for the purpose of providing allotments for residents in their areas.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the Minister himself initiate a scheme of assistance for allotment holders in this country?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I am discussing the whole question with the allotment societies on Friday next.
Following is the answer to the first part of the question:
The latest information available for the whole of England and Wales is that returned as at 31st December, 1934, when the estimated total area of public and private allotments was 134,000 acres. The corresponding figure previously obtained was 146,000 acres as at 31st December, 1930. The returns obtained since 1934 have been confined to urban authorities, covering about four-fifths of the total number of allotments provided by local authorities, and figures for these authorities for 1938 are at present in course of collection. For urban areas the total area of allotments (excluding railway allotments) was 60,900 acres in 1933, 60,700 in 1934, 59,700 in 1935, 59,250 in 1936, and 58,400 acres in 1937. The figure for

1937 includes 14,600 acres (one-fourth of the total) purchased by the local authorities specifically for allotments, about 12,800 acres hired by them for that purpose, and about 7,200 acres which they hold for other purposes but utilise at present for allotments. No official estimate of the annual amount and value of the produce from allotments is available.

WALES.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in his present conversations with agricultural interests in connection with future policy, he is taking steps to secure adequate presentation of the special needs of agriculture in Wales?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In any legislative proposals which my right hon. and gallant Friend may be contemplating, in connection with agriculture, will he bear in mind the special characteristics of agriculture in Wales; further, will he give adequate representation to Welsh agricultural interests on any personnel he may be setting up?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: For a great many years I have been aware of the importance of agricultural interests in Wales, and I will try to see that justice is done to all sections.

CENTRAL SLAUGHTERHOUSES.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the scheme for central slaughterhouses in typical areas as provided for in the Livestock Industry Act?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a question on the subject asked by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on 9th February. I understand that the examination of the 12 proposals for the establishment of central slaughterhouses which have been submitted to the Livestock Commission is proceeding as rapidly as possible.

BRITISH PRODUCE (ADVERTISING).

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that New Zealand spends £30,000 and Argentina £40,000 a year to advertise their food products, as marketed in this country


under State control; and whether, seeing the success of this form of publicity, he will co-operate with British producers and traders, possibly on the £ for £ basis, for the advertising of properly graded British produce?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: Although I have no precise information on the subject, I am aware that considerable sums are spent for the purposes mentioned by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question. Steps are already taken to advertise British produce that has been graded under the various National Mark Schemes, and, while the sums available for this purpose are limited, I shall be happy to consider any suggestions for further co-operation.

Sir P. Hurd: Are the sums to which the Minister refers Government sums, or trade sums?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: I think they are Government sums.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER FOR THE CO-ORDINA TION OF DEFENCE AND CHAN CELLOR OF THE DUCHY.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to define the duties of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, respectively; to state whether any, and, if so, what, staff will be allotted to each Minister; and where these two Ministers and their staffs will have their headquarters?

The Prime Minister: The responsibilities of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence will be broadly the same as those of his predecessor. A statement of the duties of the Minister was set out in paragraph 47 of the Statement on Defence presented to Parliament in March, 1936 (Cmd. 5107). The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will answer for the Minister in this House, and will assist him generally. He has been appointed a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence, Chairman of the Principal Supply Officers Committee, Chairman of the Ministerial Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence dealing with Man-Power, and President of the Oil Board. Both the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence and the Chancellor

of the Duchy of Lancaster will be assisted by the staff of the Office of the Cabinet and Committee of Imperial Defence, which includes the staff of the Supply Board. The staff of this office has recently been strengthened. The offices of both Ministers and of the staff referred to, are at Richmond Terrace, Whitehall, S.W.1.

Mr. Hicks: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answer that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been made a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

Sir P. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the proposal set out in the statement sent to him by the hon. Member for Devizes to deal with the worst features of unemployment by the formation of an industrial reserve made up of capable but workless workers for whom training and recreational centres would be provided in their home districts and who would be available for air-raid precautions and other exceptional work for national Defence; and whether, in view of the general uneasiness at the continued volume of unemployment, he will invite a few representatives of employers and employed to consider this suggestion, in connection with the proposed National Register or otherwise, and submit a practical scheme?

The Prime Minister: An opportunity for discussing this and other suggestions will arise in next Thursday's Debate, and I could not anticipate within the limits of a reply to a question the full statement of the Government's policy which will then be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the complexity of the schedule of days of priority for the questioning of Ministers; and whether he is prepared to consider suggestions for the simplification of the schedule?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member has any suggestions to make for the simplification of the order of


Questions, I hope that he will make them known through the usual channels so that they may receive consideration. I would remind the hon. Member that the recent re-arrangement of Questions on Wednesdays and Thursdays was made to meet the complaints of hon. Members in all parts of the House and was agreed to after discussion through the usual channels. A printed list has been issued by the authorities of the House in order to assist hon. Members to ascertain the order of Questions for some weeks in advance.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has the Prime Minister read the schedule of days of priority and, if so, can he understand it; secondly, upon whom does initiative rest in making any change? Is the Prime Minister or Mr. Speaker responsible?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first two parts of the hon. Member's supplementary question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, these matters are usually arranged through what are called "the usual channels."

Mr. Garro Jones: I am anxious to ascertain, and could the Prime Minister say, who has authority to make the change in an executive way, rather than by order of the House, and whether an Order would have to be placed upon the Order Paper to make a change in the Standing Order?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker is always anxious to conform to the wishes of Members. The difficulty is to collect the views of Members, and this is done through the usual channels.

Mr. Thorne: Would the Prime Minister be prepared to recommend an alteration in the Standing Orders to give another 15 minutes each day to questions?

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Colonel Baldwin-Webb: Is it not true that the time devoted to supplementary questions seriously makes the position worse?

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMITTEES.

Miss Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider committing more Government Bills to the Standing Committees, so that more time would be available in the House for the

discussion of such important subjects as the problems arising out of the decline of shipping and merchant shipbuilding?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that my hon. Friend's suggestion is impracticable. As I informed her on 2nd February, the position of shipping and shipbuilding is under consideration, and a statement will be made as soon as it is possible to do so.

Miss Ward: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has always said that he would conform to the wishes of Members, would he bear in mind that some of his own supporters would rather discuss problems arising out of unemployment upon a Motion from their own side than upon a Vote of Censure raised by the Opposition?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE AND WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. Batey: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now able to state whether the Government intend to hold an early inquiry into the question of old age and widows' pensions, with a view to removing some of the anomalies of the 1925 Act, and increasing the amount of the pension?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Euan Wallace): I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by holding such an inquiry.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the widespread nature of this demand and the fact that the only objection is on the ground of finance, would the Government consider appointing a Select Committee of this House to inquire into how finance can be provided to meet this desirable object?

Mr. Batey: When I put a question to the Prime Minister a while ago asking whether he would agree to the appointment of a Royal Commission the right hon. Gentleman answered that he thought that that was not the best way of dealing with the matter. Here, I am asking for an inquiry, and I would like the Prime Minister to say whether he does not consider that it would be a good way to deal with the question?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to add to the answer already given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

Mr. Batey: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (TRAWLER LANDINGS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give some information as to the extent to which the landings by larger vessels of the trawling fleet have had to be regulated?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: A voluntary scheme for regulating landings by the distant-water fishing fleets of Hull and Grimsby was put into operation as an emergency measure at the beginning of 1938. I understand that under the scheme about 20 per cent. of the distant-water fishing vessels of the two ports have been laid up, and restrictions, which have been varied from time to time, have been placed on the quantity of fish which might be landed from any one voyage by any of the remaining vessels.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that this voluntary regulation of the trawling industry has led to considerable unemployment in the industry, and also to higher prices for fish?

Sir R. Dorman-Smith: With regard to the latter part of the supplementary question, I am informed that the average port price for Great Britain in 1938 was higher than for 1936 and 1937, but was well below the figures for 1934 and 1935, and I do not know whether it would really help the industry as such to do away with this arrangement.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that, apart from port prices, there has been a considerable increase in retail prices?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

AUSTRALIAN AIR MAILS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Postmaster-General what complaints have been received from the Australian Government concerning the Australian air mails?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): During the Christmas season, the Australian Post Office drew attention to the large number of

letters reaching Australia from this country which were prepaid at less than the correct rate of postage of 1½d. per half ounce. Apart from this, I am not aware of any complaints.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is this mail service now functioning punctually and efficiently, without any complaints being received?

Sir W. Womersley: Yes, Sir; they are well satisfied both in this country and in Australia.

FIGHTING FORCES (FOREIGN PARCEL RATES).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that men serving with the colours abroad have often to pay heavy increased postage for parcels sent by their parents and friends, and that one such member of the Fleet on foreign service received an intimation from the postal authorities that he would have to send on 2s. 3d. for additional postage before his parcel could leave England; and will he take steps to have such parcels sent at inland cost?

Sir W. Womersley: There is already a special scale of postage rates, appreciably lower than the corresponding civilian rates, for parcels addressed to personnel of His Majesty's Forces and Ships serving abroad. I regret that I am unable to agree that such parcels should be accepted at inland rates. As regards the individual case referred to by the hon. Member, if he will be good enough to give me particulars I will have inquiry made.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are many parents all over the country who are complaining about the difficulty of getting small parcels to their sons with the Fleet, or that, if they do send parcels, their sons have to pay more for them than the parcels are actually worth; and would it not be desirable, in view of the fact that they are on service with the Fleet, that they should get this service at inland rates?

Sir W. Womersley: The rates are considerably below those charged to anyone outside His Majesty's Forces. If the hon. Member has any special case, perhaps he will bring it to my notice.

Mr. Gallacher: I will give the hon. Gentleman the case mentioned in my question, and I hope he will use it to ease the situation.

INLAND PRESS TELEGRAPH SERVICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General the approximate loss on the Press telegraph service, as shown on the commercial accounts of the Post Office, for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Sir W. Womersley: The loss on the inland Press telegraph service for the year ended 31st March, 1938, is estimated at about £80,000. This deficit is arrived at after charging against the service a proportionate share of the general expenses of the telegraph service. It does not purport to represent the net saving that would follow the elimination of Press telegrams, which would amount to a lower figure.

Mr. Day: Is the hon. Gentleman considering any early change in the charges?

Sir W. Womersley: The loss on these Press telegrams has fallen during the last four years by more than half, and I do not think it would be in the public interest to make any change.

SORTERS AND POSTMEN (OVERTIME).

Mr. Viant: asked the Postmaster-General (1) the amount of overtime worked by the sorters and postmen, respectively, in the London postal area during the months of October and November, 1938, and January, 1939; and the number of persons so engaged;
(2) the amount of overtime worked by sorters and postmen, respectively, in Bristol and Manchester during the months of October and November of 1938 and January of 1939; and the number of persons so engaged?

Sir W. Womersley: Information in the form desired by the hon. Member is not readily available. I am having inquiry made, and will write to him on the matter.

TELEPHONE MESSAGES (CABLE CHARGES).

Mr. MacNeill Weir: asked the Postmaster-General what islands in the United Kingdom are required to pay cable charges on telephone messages; what islands are exempt from such charges; and what is the position of Northern Ireland?

Sir W. Womersley: The islands within the United Kingdom to which special cable charges are at present applied are Lewis and Harris, Islay, Mull, Iona, Coll, Tiree, and the Channel Islands. No cable charge

is now payable on calls between the mainland and Northern Ireland, nor to any other islands in the United Kingdom to which telephone service is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

Mr. A. Henderson: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of His Majesty's Government to give an assurance that, so long as the existing legitimate Government of Spain continues there shall be no recognition of the Spanish insurgent authorities as the de facto or de jure Government of that country.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House will recognise that, really, to give permission to move the Adjournment of the House on a matter of this sort would be stretching the Standing Order very much beyond its proper limits. The Standing Order is meant to deal with something that has occurred and is of urgent public importance, but this is a matter which may occur, so that really it is not a definite matter at all.

Mr. Henderson: The Prime Minister stated that conditions in Spain were rapidly changing, and he refused to commit the Government in relation to this possible major change in policy; and it might be that His Majesty's Government might recognise the Spanish insurgent authorities before this House had had time to express its opinion upon it.

Mr. Speaker: The fact that conditions are rapidly changing makes it clear that this is not a definite matter.

Mr. Benn: May I ask you, Sir, whether you heard that part of the Prime Minister's answer in which he declined to consult this House before coming to a decision?

Mr. Speaker: That is not the matter which is mentioned on this Motion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 91.

Division No. 33.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Apstey, Lord
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Aske, Sir R. W,
Goldie, N. B.
Petherick, M.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pilkington, R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Granville, E. L.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bernays, R. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Blair, Sir R.
Grimston, R. V.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Hambro, A. V.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bullock, Capt. M.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Samuel, M. R. A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Butcher, H. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Sandys, E. D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Selley, H. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cary, R. A.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport:
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hulbert, N. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hunloke, H. P.
Somerset, T.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Joel, D. J. B.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Keeling, E. H.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cox, Trevor
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Tate, Mavis C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lindsay, K. M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lipson, D. L.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Touche, G. C.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Denville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Wakefield, W. W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Doland, G. F.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Drewe, C.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J, S.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J. R. J.
Warrendar, Sir V.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duggan, H. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dunglass, Lord
Markham, S. F.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marsden, Commander A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ellis, Sir G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Medlicott, F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lam (Streatham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Moreing, A. C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fleming, E. L.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Munro, P.
Captain Hope and Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bevan, A.
Dobble, W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Broad, F. A.
Dunn, E. (Rothar Valley)


Adamson, W. M.
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Chater, D.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Banfield, J. W.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)


Barnes, A. J.
Collindridge, F.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.


Batey, J.
Daggar, G.
Gallacher, W.


Ballenger, F. J.
Dalton, H.
Gardner, B. W.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Garro Jones, G. M.


Benson, G.
Day, H.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)







Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacLaren, A.
Stephen, C.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, G.
Stewart, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Messer, F.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Hardie, Agnes
Montague F.
Thorns, W.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtle, E.


Hayday, A.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Tinker, J. J.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Hicks, E. G.
Parker, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pritt, D. N.
Watkins, F. C.


Hopkin, D.
Sanders, W, S.
White, H. Graham


Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Lawson, J. J.
Silverman, S. S.



Leach, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.


Question. "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1938).

Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army for the year ending 31st March, 1939 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 54.]

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FAC TORIES) (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1938).

Estimate presented of the further Sum required to be voted for the Army (Royal Ordnance Factories) for the year ending 31st March, 1939 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 55.]

Orders of the Day — CANCER BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Duty of local authorities.)

3.59 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after the second "the," to insert "investigation and."
There is no great question of principle involved in this Amendment, as my right hon. Friend will appreciate. Sub-section (2, a) provides for arrangements
for facilitating the diagnosis of cancer.
I am very anxious to encourage all medical men, especially in the rural districts, not to be afraid of sending cases of suspected cancer to hospital, even though they may not be quite satisfied in their own minds that it is cancer. I do not want to go into the technical aspects of the matter here, but the Committee will appreciate that cancer is a form of growth that it is not always easy to diagnose. Therefore, I am anxious that medical men should be able to send cases to hospital, for investigation as well as for treatment. Unless there is some very special objection, I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): I have no very strong objection to the Amendment, but I think if my hon. Friend will look at the part of the Bill now under consideration he will see that it is rather addressed to the local authorities, and I would suggest that his point can better be met under Sub-section (2) which deals with arrangements not only for facilitating the diagnosis of cancer but the treatment of cancer. I am anxious not to insert further words in the Bill if we can do without them, and I think the words proposed would not be appropriate here.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: My right hon. Friend has not stated any very adequate objection to the Amendment, but I have no desire to press it, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: The next Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the Minister. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), I think will be sufficiently covered by the Amendment next following the Minister's Amendment:
(a) an advisory committee reresenting the interests concerned nominated by the Minister after consultation with their several representative organisations.
—I think, will be sufficiently covered by the Minister's Amendment.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out line 10.
It might, perhaps, be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to have something in the nature of a general discussion upon this Amendment, because one aspect of it is raised in the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), and a further aspect of it in the Amendment standing in the names of several Members of the Liberal Opposition. I would like to make a statement which goes rather beyond the Amendment I have put down, and, if possible, to refer to the Amendment on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for St. Albans and the subsequent Amendment by hon. Members of the Liberal Opposition, if the Chairman can allow that.

The Chairman: I will help the Committee as far as I can, but, on the face of it, I do not quite see how this Amendment can cover the others. The right hon. Gentleman's statement may enlighten me so I will ask him to proceed.

Mr. Elliot: I think it was the general desire of the House in discussing this Bill on Second Reading that it should cover cancer problems generally, and that consultation should take place between those engaged in every aspect of the treatment of cancer, and should not be limited to the radium treatment of cancer, if full advantage was to be taken of the money and skill which were to be put at the disposal of cancer patients in the future. Several speeches were made—by the hon. Member for Hammersmith South (Mr. Cooke) and the hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans)—among others, suggesting that specific statutory consultation with the Radium Commission might reasonably be omitted


from the Bill. I promised the House that this should be a Measure which the whole House could take part in framing, and on consideration I decided to omit specific consultation with the Radium Commission. Some consultation, however, must take place, because it would be undesirable that the Minister should himself decide all these matters. He should have the advantage of the best technical opinion possible. Therefore, I propose to appoint a sub-committee of the Medical Advisory Committee at present in existence, to advise me on general principles in regard to the treatment of cancer and to consider any questions referred to them by me. This sub-committee would include experts in medicine, surgery, gynaecology, radium-therapy, pathology and public health administration. I think that will cover the point which the hon. Member for St. Albans had in mind in regard to the advisory committee which he thought of suggesting to the Committee this afternoon, and I think, also, it will cover the advisory commission suggested by Members of the Liberal apposition.

Mr. Graham White: May I ask whether the local authorities would have access to this sub-committee or only the Minister?

Mr. Elliot: My idea was that the local authorities should draw up their schemes and submit them to the Minister, who in considering them would have the advantage of the best technical opinion. I think it would be inadvisable that the local authorities should separately consult a committee which the Minister would also consult. It would be very much better that a local authority—let us say, the London County Council—when drawing up a scheme should take into consultation anybody whose advice they wish to have, such as the representatives of voluntary hospitals and medical practitioners, and should then submit the scheme to the Minister, who would consider it, and would have to stand the racket for his decision afterwards in the House. I think that would be the proper chain of responsibility. It is for that reason that I have put down this Amendment. I do not think it desirable to make it compulsory for the local authority to consult this committee, but there is no reason why they should not informally consult the

Radium Commission, and it would be very much better that that consultation should be of an informal nature, and that the statutory consultation should be merely with the hospitals and medical practitioners.
I hope that plan will commend itself to the Committee. In the first place, I hope, it will meet the fear of some hon. Members that radium is given too prominent a place in the Bill, and, secondly the fear that local authorities are going in some way to be put under a technical commission. Their powers of informal consultation will remain unimpaired, and there need be no fear that the Minister will not take advantage of all technical opinion, and not merely of radium experts. By this Amendment the advice of experts in medicine, surgery, gynaecology, radium-therapy, pathology and public health administration will be at the disposal of the Minister, and, of course, I undertake to consult with this proposed committee, although I think it is hardly necessary to say so, because I should not set up a committee and then not consult it.

Miss Wilkinson: Will this advisory committee have any powers of initiation? Will it be able to prepare schemes and put them before the Minister, or will it be able only to deliberate upon or give an opinion upon matters directly referred to it by the Minister?

Mr. Elliot: I am not laying down the terms of reference to the committee now, but I rather thought that its function should be to deliberate on matters referred to it by me. However, I am perfectly willing to consider whether the committee should have the power of initiation as well. As it will not be a statutory committee, I am quite certain that the members will not only say to the Minister that they do not like the scheme submitted to them, but will say that they think the Minister ought to do this and that instead of what he proposes to do. In fact, if not in theory, the committee, therefore, will have powers of initiation, but I will consider further the relations between the committee and the Minister. All I am asking now is that the committee should strike out line 10 and should agree to the suggestion I make as to the setting up of a cancer sub-committee.

The Chairman: Before the discussion goes on, I think I had better make a


reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his statement. I have no complaint of what he said or of the reference he made to his intentions, but we must not further discuss the next Amendment on the Order Paper.

4.14 p.m.

Sir Francis Fremantle: This Amendment will make a very considerable change in the Bill, but it is very different from the Amendment which I put down. It is quite true that one of the main objects of my Amendment was to strike out the unequal emphasis attached to the word "radium" in the Bill, and the Minister's proposal to leave that out is undoubtedly a valuable thing. The question is what is to be substituted for it. My Amendment proposed a very different committee from that suggested by the Minister.

The Chairman: That is just the point. That must come on the next Amendment. The only Question before the Committee at the present moment is whether line 10 should stand part.

Sir F. Fremantle: You called my Amendment with that of the Minister.

The Chairman: No. I said I did not select it, and that I thought it would be covered by the discussion on the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead next following.

Sir F. Fremantle: I understood you to say that the Minister's Amendment would be called in order that mine might be included in it.

The Chairman: I am afraid that the hon. Member misheard me. I said that I did not select his Amendment, and that I thought that perhaps he could discuss it on the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White).

Mr. White: May I inquire whether, in the event of the Minister's Amendment being carried, it would preclude the possibility of further discussion on my Amendment, and also, am I to understand that, if I were to accept the Minister's Amendment and his explanation now, it would almost preclude me from putting my Amendment without showing greater hostility to the Minister's Amendment than I feel?

The Chairman: I have nothing to do with hostility or otherwise in the relations between Ministers and hon. Members, but I am bound to treat these two Amendments as separate. As soon as that of the Minister is disposed of, I propose to call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. We can discuss that quite fully when we come to it, and whatever may happen to the Minister's Amendment will not narrow the discussion on the next Amendment.

Sir F. Fremantle: Clearly the reason of the Minister for leaving out the Radium Commission is the substitution of the committee which he proposes to set up, and, therefore, we cannot discuss his Amendment without considering the reason of the Amendment and the nature of the committee which he is setting up. I will confine myself to that when stating the proposal contained in my Amendment. I want some further explanation of the sub-committee which he is to set up. It is, I understand, to be a committee of the Advisory Medical Committee. There are two committees of which I know in the Ministry of Health, one being the Medical Committee and the other the Housing Committee. I sit on the Housing Committee and the procedure—and no doubt it is the same on the Medical Committee—is that it is worked largely through sub-committees which have to report to the main committee, which meets once a quarter and gives advice to the Minister.
I should like some assurance from the Minister that that very tardy procedure which is followed with regard to the Housing Committee will not be followed in regard to this proposal. We cannot wait for a sub-committee to pass its resolutions on to a committee which meets so occasionally. I hope that the sub-committee will be required to report direct to the Minister. The proposal in which he substitutes the sub-committee for the Radium Commission does not entirely meet the ideas in the minds of many people. The enlargement of the committee as suggested very possibly would best be considered on the next Amendment to be moved. When we are considering that we should consider whether the nature of the sub-committee that is to be set up is sufficiently wide in its interests and composition to meet the case. I entirely agree with the elimination of the Radium Com-


mission as such as long as the members of the Radium Commission will be recognised as a body of the very highest order and that their opinions, with others, will be properly considered.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. White: I believe that the Amendment of the Minister to leave out line 10 will be welcomed without any reserve at all by the whole Committee, and certainly by a very large body of opinion outside this House. Authoritative opinion, as far as there is any authoritative opinion with regard to cancer, would undoubtedly be made very unhappy by what appeared to be an undue bias in favour of radium in this Bill. It was described as a Radium Bill, and that belief was very prevalent. I regret to say that, in spite of the very definite statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and also by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Second Reading Debate, that opinion is still held, though perhaps not widely. I have received communications from outside authorities who will persist in calling it a Radium Bill. We now know that that is not the case, whatever was the first impression, which was undoubtedly encouraged by fantastic stories in the Press about the price of radium and the action the Minister proposed to take.
The Radium Commission now disappears from the Bill, and I think all concerned will welcome its disappearance. No one has ventured to criticise the Radium Commission in the way in which it has discharged the particular duty given to it, but I have yet to meet anybody who would suggest that the Radium Commission was a suitable body to direct a national campaign, to co-ordinate, stimulate and put life into the machinery of the local authorities for the purpose of bringing about a national campaign against cancer. There can be no two opinions about the actual Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has moved. The Radium Commission has done nothing whatever to increase the number of personnel, nor would it have, if this Amendment were not carried, any authority to increase the personnel to the extent envisaged if this Bill is to be successful. There must be an enormous increase in the personnel of the highest technical and scientific practice and attainment if the Bill is to meet its full

purpose. The Radium Commission certainly has done nothing, nor can it do anything to promote the personnel and make the work effective. Whether the new sub-committee which the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be set up, with the direction, on the consultative side, of a national cancer campaign, would be able to take into account the necessity for personnel, and would be able to give advice to the local authorities in the preparation of their schemes or to the Minister, I do not know. That is a matter which will call for further consideration.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) raised a practical point of substance when he spoke of the time factor in these negotiations between the Minister and his advisory committee and the local authorities. If the local authority are preparing a scheme, and they submit it to the Minister he may, in his discretion, take the opinion of his advisory committee on some aspects of it. Then it may have to go back to the local authority, and yet again it may come up.

The Chairman: I think that all this will come on the next Amendment.

Mr. White: It may be in order on the next Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, suggested a sub-committee, and I was merely putting forward, in an interrogative way, an inquiry as to how it would work. If the proposed committee of the right hon. Gentleman had better be discussed on a subsequent Amendment, well and good, but if I may put my inquiry now, it may save time.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I should certainly be prepared to deal with the sub-committee when coming to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and others. I merely referred to my intention, though it is not part of the Amendment which I have presently put down. I referred to it as giving the Committee some idea of what I had in mind later on. It would not be in order to discuss that now, and clearly it could be more suitably discussed when replying to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead. I am grateful to the Committee for the support which they have given to my proposal, that line 10 should be left out. The


Radium Commission has been consulted in this matter and will be very glad, no doubt, to be relieved of that statutory consultation.

Mr. White: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I have nothing further to say except to accept gratefully the suggestion made in the Amendment which he has moved with regard to the Radium Commission.

4.27 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: I welcome the deletion of the reference to the Radium Commission, because it is an underlining of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman gave on the Second Reading that this is in no sense a Radium Bill. The sub-committee which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is one which he is to consult, whereas the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is a sub-committee which the local authorities are to consult. I would like to ask the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary in his absence, one question with regard to the sub-committee which the Minister has indicated he proposes to set up for consultation by himself. He has indicated that it is to be a sub-committee of his Medical Advisory Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the British Hospitals Association, which is a body comprising representatives of the voluntary hospitals, has had this matter under consideration. It holds the view that the right hon. Gentleman will be well advised to set up, as he suggests setting up, an advisory committee, but equally holds the view that that committee should not be restricted in its membership merely to those who can advise upon the technical aspects of the diagnosis or treatment of cancer. The questions which will be raised in any scheme that may be put forward for the consideration of the Minister must necessarily involve a number of matters of a purely administrative and practical character. Experience in the administration of hospitals shows that it is not, as a matter of practice, possible for the medical staff, however skilled it may be, to take into effective account the whole of the considerations that have been considered when putting forward a new suggestion for diagnosis or treatment, because there are all sorts of ancillary matters involved in the way of equipment, nursing accommodation and things of that kind.

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going a long way beyond the purpose of this Amendment.

Colonel Nathan: May I venture to direct your attention, Sir Dennis, to the fact that the next Amendment relates to a committee to be set up for consultation by the local authorities? That is under the scheme of the Bill. The sub-committee to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred is not a sub-committee to be consulted by the local authorities, but a sub-committee which he is proposing to set up for consultation by himself, for which there is no provision in the terms of the Bill.

The Chairman: It is true that the Minister has stated that it is his intention to do something not within the terms of the Bill, but outside it. That is not in the Clause. We must deal with the next Amendment when we come to it.

Colonel Nathan: I hope you will not think I am in any way obstructive. Perhaps you will allow me to make my point clear. I am directing my mind exclusively to the suggestion which you permitted the right hon. Gentleman to make as to the setting up by him of a sub-committee, not mentioned in the Bill. He has told us of the composition of that sub-committee, and the point that I wish to make is on that same question of the composition of the sub-committee. It is entirely unrelated to the advisory committee which is the subject of the next Amendment.

The Chairman: I will hear the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel Nathan: I will put the point briefly. For the reasons which I have roughly indicated, the voluntary hospitals feel it most desirable that, as administrative bodies, they should have representation upon any committee which the right hon. Gentleman may set up for his own guidance, and I express the hope that when creating such a sub-committee the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that the local authorities will have direct access to him, as their statutory right under the Bill and that although the voluntary hospitals have to be consulted by the local authorities, they will have no direct access to him. It is that direct access for which I ask.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I should like to make a few observations on the right hon.


Gentleman's Amendment. The complaint of hon. Members was that the words that he is proposing to delete would compel the local authorities to consult the Commission. Without those words, there is nothing to prevent a local authority from consulting the Commission if they want to do so. I should like to say a few words in favour of the Amendment. I favour it because in looking at the 9th annual report of the National Radium Trust and the Radium Commission it seems to me, without offending them, that the Commission is more or less a commercial body which buys radium and sees that it is distributed in the country. It has very little to do with the problem of cancer as such. I know nothing about the technicalities of this business, being a layman, like most hon. Members, but it may be that when the Act is in operation, science will find something other than radium to cure people of cancer. Consequently, on that score I am in favour of deleting the words mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: It might be considered that I was discourteous if I did not reply to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan), who asked that, in addition to the technical sub-committee, there should also be a hospital sub-committee of laymen to advise me. I do not close my mind to the necessity of other consultations, but I am bound to say that, as I see the problem at present, there is a danger of getting ourselves so entangled in committees that it may not be possible to get forward with the work. Therefore, I should not like to pledge myself to a consultative committee for the voluntary hospitals, set up for that purpose, but I shall, of course, have full discussions with the hospitals on any matters which concern them.

Amendment agreed to.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. White: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
a National Council representing physicians, surgeons, radiologists, pathologists, and biochemists, to be set up under this Act.
One particular consideration which has led to the moving of this Amendment has been discussed and disposed of in the dis-

cussion on the previous Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman. It was generally agreed that the Bill is stronger and better without the inclusion of the Radium Commission. The commission is available for consultation in connection with the service which it is well fitted to perform, but it would, obviously, be a mistake to include in the Bill as a statutory consultative body a body whose very existence may become unnecessary on a date which we hope will be not distant when radium may be succeeded by some other more effective method of treatment for the cure of cancer. That being the case, the problem that presents itself is what sort of committee or body should be set up in order that all the available knowledge and directive influence may be made available for a national cancer campaign, and be at the disposal of the local authorities in the preparation of their schemes.
I and my hon. Friends would like, and, what is more important, those outside who are in the ranks of those who are called upon to consider methods for the treatment of cancer and the establishment of hospitals, would like, a committee or council available, embodying all the experience which has been gained up to the present time, which would make effective all those methods, new and old, in the cumulative experience in the treatment of this dreadful disease. I submit that a committee of the kind suggested by my Amendment, which could be consulted by the local authorities prior to the submission of their schemes, which would be representative of the practice and experience in the country on this subject, would be the best kind of body to be set up for the purpose.
Having considered the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, I am inclined to think that a body with greater prestige than a sub-committee would probably be more effective and more efficient. The right hon. Gentleman said, truly, that we must be careful not to become involved in too many committees. Already, there is a multitude of bodies, and it is difficult to say where the new committee is to take its place in the hierarchy that exists. There is the Medical Research Council, which performs very valuable functions. The body which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to set up is to be a sub-committee of his own advisory committee. I do not want to disparage the sub-


committee, because I do not even know its constitution, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that there is representation upon it of the different interests specially enumerated in my Amendment, which comprise all the elements of the medical and scientific profession which are essential in the direction of any campaign of this kind.
One point that has come to my mind is that we should know the present state of our knowledge in regard to the cure of cancer. A great many parallel investigations are being conducted, and it is very important that any body which is directing a national campaign should have access to this knowledge as it is brought to light. In the ordinary course of events if any particular discovery is made, although it may be published in the scientific journals, it may not become common knowledge for 12 months or two years. If a national council were set up it could deal promptly with such matters and see that they were made available without delay to those who are in the front trenches, fighting the battle against cancer.
I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the sub-committee which he proposes to set up will be an effective body. Perhaps he will give us some idea what he thinks the process will be by which the schemes of the local authorities can reach their final stage. Presumably, they will be drawn up by the medical officer and the council, in consultation with bodies equipped for the purpose, but the materials and the methods will vary from county to county and from county borough to county borough. He will have to consider a number of schemes which will present an extraordinary variety of features and ideas. Consultation before the scheme reached him with a body to which the local authority could have direct access would simplify their task, save a great deal of time and cut out the necessity for a great deal of correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and his Department and the local authorities. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, as far as it went, on the Amendment which we have accepted, I still think that, on the whole, a more authoritative committee, to which the local authorities would have access for advice before their schemes were submitted, would be preferable.

4.44 p.m.

Sir F. Fremantle: I cannot entirely support the wording of the Amendment. It varies very little from my Amendment, but it includes certain bodies of individuals, while others are left out. For instance, the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) leaves out the gynaecologists and the physicists. Therefore, I should prefer my Amendment, which suggests several representative organisations. One of the organisations that would, obviously, be required would be one representing the general practitioners. The difficulty in all these schemes is that when you are going to have the highest technical experience in the land giving their advice, the people who are really going to carry out the work, and who are the keystone of it, are the general practitioners.
If the general medical practitioner is not included in the Bill his patients will practically never get treated at all. It is up to the general medical practitioner to be seized with the idea of the scheme and then to advise his patients that it is worth their while to get out of his clutches and into the hands of the main central body for advice and treatment, and then, when they come out, to be in close touch with the experts of the hospital centres, to give them after-care treatment. Above all, you want to have the general medical practitioners represented, although they may not consider themselves as coming under any of the categories named in the Amendment. It may be that they may be included in the sub-committee which the Minister is setting up. I believe there have been consultations between the right hon. Gentleman and the British Medical Association, and I should like to be satisfied that the British Medical Association have put forward proposals for the general practitioner to be included.
But we are up against a more difficult matter than that. This is a radical change in the structure of the Bill. It is important for the Minister to have advice. When a scheme is put before him we want to be sure that the Minister of Health in the future, who may not be so well equipped with technical knowledge as the present Minister of Health, will have the best advice at hand as to how far a scheme is useful, how far it must be amended, or whether it is incompatible with the main object of the Bill. In the latter case he will have to reject the scheme altogether.


Think of the position in which we may be landed. A local authority, a comparatively small one, a borough of 60,000 or 100,000 inhabitants, happens to be progressive and has a certain number of people who are very generous and say that they will bear the whole expense. It decides to have one of these great centres. It gets great publicity, big public meeting and advertises the scheme. It goes through all its stages and then comes to the Minister who submits it to his sub-committee. The sub-committee may think it is a perfectly absurd scheme for such a little town; it cannot provide the facilities which are necessary and it is turned down.
We want a scheme by which local authorities will be guided in the earliest stages of their proposals. Take the analogy when town planning first came in in 1910, under Mr. John Burns. It was an entirely new proposal and cut across old ideas of administration. A local authority, first of all, had to have leave from the Minister to prepare a scheme, and there were all sorts of stages before a scheme was approved. It was a dilatory proceeding, and has rightly been curtailed. But the idea of going to the Minister for leave to prepare a scheme is required if you are not going to have a national council which local authorities will be required to consult, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider whether it is not necessary to bring in some suggestion of that sort as an amendment on the Report stage. The Minister has not yet made a statement as to how he proposes to work this Measure. I think local authorities should have a body which they can consult at the earliest stages when they are preparing their schemes. It is true that under the Bill they are bound to consult various bodies, but they are local bodies. They have to consult a body representing the medical profession. It may be a very valuable body and may consist of a large number of men who are very busy locally, or it may be a very dull body with a secretary so incompetent that they really are not worth consulting. I think there should be a larger body which is thoroughly representative, and which can take the larger view which is required. If this larger view is to be taken, it seems to me that it must come from headquarters. We are here concerned with a large new scheme of expenditure and, what is even

more important, we want to arouse intelligent interest in the treatment of this dread disease. I say clearly that we should have a scheme in the Bill which will enable proper advice to be given to local authorities in the early stages of preparing their schemes. I hope the Minister will give us a lead on this matter.

4.55 p.m

Mr. Herbert Morrison: In addition to medical cancer there is such a thing as administrative cancer, and one of the best ways in which to bring about administrative cancer is to complicate the procedure by setting up a whole host of committees before you start to do the job of work. It seems to me that the Amendment is a good example of administrative cancer. John Stuart Mill said that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Nowadays the price of liberty is eternal committees. I cannot stop the Minister appointing an advisory committee, and there may be a great deal to be said for it in this case. I do not want to argue that point. For myself, I would sooner the House of Commons passed a Bill giving the Minister and local authorities the proper power and then expect them to get on with the job. The hon. Member wants to pass a Bill placing duties on local authorities and then say that they must go to some national committee for permission to prepare a scheme to administer the Bill.

Sir F. Fremantle: It is riot for permission; it is mainly for advice on matters about which they are not very conversant. I am not thinking about the London County Council, but about the smaller authorities.

Mr. Morrison: I can assure the hon. Member that I am not thinking of the London County Council at all. The hon. Member referred to the analogy of the Town Planning Act whereby local authorities have to go to the Minister for leave to prepare plans. That is a very dilatory and slow process. The Bill proposes, and I think quite properly, that before a local authority prepares a scheme for submission to the Minister it should consult local voluntary hospitals and the local medical profession. That is right, because the voluntary hospitals are or may be doing things in connection with cancer, and they should be taken into account by a local authority before it


submits a scheme. The local medical profession will have its experts and its knowledge, and it is right that they should be consulted. But, having done that, it seems to me that local authorities should deal with the Minister, and nobody but the Minister, in asking for approval of their schemes. If the Minister likes to consult the National Council or technical bodies, that is his business, and no doubt he will learn all he can from these learned societies, but if local authorities are to satisfy not only the Minister but some sort of national committee representing all these professions and learned societies, the work of local authorities will be gravely injured.

Sir F. Fremantle: May I point out that the proposal is that they shall consult these bodies?

Mr. Morrison: If local authorities are to argue with a miscellaneous collection of people representing various professions, technical bodies and learned societies, with all their known specialist ideas, some of them with cranky ideas, then, in my opinion, things are going to be slowed down and local authorities are not going to have a clean piece of administration as between themselves and the Minister. The Minister, no doubt, will be in touch with these various bodies, and they will certainly be in touch with the Minister. They will make representations to him, as they have every right to do, but it is a totally different matter for administrative schemes to be handled by non-administrators, who are not able to appreciate all the administrative problems involved. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman proposed the previous Amendment on grounds of simplicity of administration, and I hope that the present Amendment will not be pressed. The hon. Member should leave it with the undertaking that has been given by the Minister, that he will be in consultation with these people. It will be very unwise to introduce a national consultative body between the Minister and the local authorities of the country.

4.59 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: This is purely a matter of practical convenience, and we on these benches do not attach vast importance to what is pure machinery. Our aim and purpose is to short-circuit, not to elaborate the procedure and make greater difficulties. We suggest that a

national council of this kind should be set up not merely for the London County Council but for all local authorities who are concerned in the administration of this dread disease. My hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is anxious that the Minister should have a national council to "vet" the proposals submitted by the local authorities. I cannot help thinking that it would be more simple and effective, and would lead to a more speedy result, if there were such a council which the local authorities could consult and from which they could receive advice.
Certainly, we do not wish to set up a cumbersome organisation which would delay or render more difficult the local authorities' work; on the contrary, the idea behind the Amendment is that there should be a national council, representing the various branches of the great medical profession, to co-ordinate the schemes and advise the various local authorities, thus lightening the burden which falls upon the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health is a hardworking Minister, charged with one of the most difficult and complex Departments, touching every section of the life of the people. It would be far better if the schemes could be thoroughly "vetted" by the medical profession, after passing automatically to such a national council, so that the Minister would not have thrust upon him the burden of having to go to a consultative committee afterwards. In moving the Amendment, we do not wish to make difficulties, but only to achieve practical results. I think the Amendment represents the great body of opinion in the medical profession, which would like to see a council of this sort set up to co-operate with the local authorities.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I appreciate the purpose of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), and also the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle). They wish to create a piece of machinery by which expert and technical opinion can, with the least possible friction, be brought to bear on the schemes while they are in the informal stage. That is the desire of all of us, There are two things which have to be considered: first, whether there should be a statutory provision by


which consultation would take place before the schemes reached the Minister, or, secondly, whether it should be left to the Minister to undertake that consultation himself.
Let us examine the Amendment. I do not wish to stress the point that when enumerating the interests which would be concerned, one might leave out one—for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans mentioned the gynaecologists, whose opinion we would wish to have—for the Amendment is brought forward as a sort of token Amendment, raising the question whether the scheme of the Bill is the best one for eliciting expert and technical opinion and bringing it to bear on this problem. I suggest that the proposal contained in the Amendment rather runs counter to the Amendment which the Committee has just accepted, by which a statutory provision for consultation was omitted from the Bill. That Amendment was accepted by way of cleaning up the Bill and leaving the administrative problem as one to be dealt with between the administrators of the local authorities and the administrators of the Department.
The schemes would not come straight to the Minister, but would come through the filter of the skilled technical opinion of the Department. It would not be possible for the Minister to divest himself of the responsibility of having the schemes so examined; he would never be able to pass them automatically, for the House would always, rightly, hold that it was his responsibility, and that it was his decision, no matter whom he consulted or did not consult. With regard to the difficulties which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans foresaw, not in the case of great bodies such as the London County Council or the West Riding of Yorkshire, but in the case of smaller bodies, that they would not have the skilled technical opinion which is readily at the disposal of great bodies, I would remind hon. Members that the Department has experience of housing, water, and sewage schemes coming from the smaller local authorities, involving considerable technical problems. In such cases there is informal consultation with the town clerks and the county clerks, who come to town and get in touch with the officer of the Ministry dealing with the particular subject. It has been our aim and endeavour—and I think

we have been successful—in recent years to make that course as informal as possible.

Mr. Maxton: Just one big happy family?

Mr. Elliot: We do our best; we are, so to speak, the city office of these organisations. I do not think any local authority administration would deny that it has, so to speak, the telephone number of the Department. A great deal of the consultation which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans desires does take place now. My hon. Friend fears that a borough might get deeply committed in some ambitious scheme and would then feel very sore if the scheme were modified or turned down; but I think it would feel equally sore if the scheme were modified or turned down by a national council such as is suggested in the Amendment or by an advisory committee such as my hon. Friend suggested. I feel that the Bill as it is will conduce to what the hon. Members have in mind, namely, informal consultation when the schemes are in the informal stage. It is that which we all desire.
Hon. Members will ask, quite properly, what I suggest as an alternative to the Amendment, and what is the machinery by which I expect it to be worked. I would appoint a Cancer Committee, including experts in surgery, medicine, gynaecology, radio therapy, pathology, and public health administration. I would make that a sub-committee of my Medical Advisory Committee for the purpose of getting that wider review which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans desires. My hon. Friend mentioned the general practitioners. There is a Statutory provision for consultation between the local authorities and the general practitioners, but my hon. Friend said that the schemes would need to be reviewed by those who looked upon them from a rather wider aspect. That will be secured by dovetailing the sub-committee to which I have referred and the Medical Advisory Committee, for that body consists of the President of the Royal College of Physicians, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons, the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Chairman of the Council of the British Medical Association, and others. Therefore, I think the general review, as well as the particular review, will be secured.
Finally, the question of delay was raised. It is true that these large committees meet infrequently, and as far as possible work in sub-committees. One desires, where possible, to avoid calling together a number of busy men, say, once a week or once a fortnight. I shall give the sub-committee the right of direct access to me as Minister. If any member of the main committee desired to have a special meeting to consider some particular matter, the committee could be called, or if I thought there was an important question which required further consideration, I could ask the committee to meet. The Cancer Committee, however, would have the right of direct access to the Minister, and this, I think, would obviate the danger of there being a delay. I suggest that this flexible and non-Statutory piece of machinery, which could be modified at short notice, would be expeditious in action and would not weaken the chain of executive authority between the local authority, upon whom the duty is placed of bringing these schemes into existence, and the Minister, who is responsible to Parliament for seeing that the work is done. I submit that we have there a workable solution, which I commend to the Committee; and having heard this explanation, I hope the hon. Member will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. White: I have listened with gratitude to the explanation which the Minister has given and the evidence of his having devoted considerable thought to this subject. The matters raised are matters of opinion, upon which one can only agree or disagree, and I am quite prepared to admit that there may be as many advantages and disadvantages on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the argument as there are on mine. My Amendment specifies certain people representing various branches of the profession, and it was promptly pointed out by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) that I had not included representatives of all the branches interested. I suppose it is the intention of the Minister that the sub-committee to which he has referred shall be representative of all those able to make any substantial and effective contribution.

Mr. Elliot: That is my intention, and even if the list originally contemplated does not fully meet all the interests, since the committee is not a Statutory com-

mittee it will be possible for me to add other members.

Mr. White: My only regret is that work of this importance should have to be relegated to a body whose official designation is to be a sub-committee. That hardly seems to be appropriate when one considers the great importance of the work that may be done. In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(6) Nothing in the arrangements or alteration or extension of arrangements made or approved under this Section shall impose an obligation upon a council to—
(a) make any payments to the governing body of any voluntary hospital in respect of the diagnosis or treatment of cancer in that hospital; or
(b) defray any expenses in relation to any person resident outside the area of the council."

I hope the Minister will be able to give us some assurances with regard to this Amendment, which is moved primarily on behalf of the London County Council but deals with a matter in which local authorities generally are interested. Clause 1 of the Bill requires local authorities to make schemes and submit them to the Minister. We are anxious to get an assurance that it is not intended that the Minister's power shall be used in the direction of giving particular grants to particular hospitals. A local authority will know the quality and character of the voluntary hospitals in its city or district and certainly all those facts would be taken into account in London. It is bound to be the case that some voluntary and indeed some municipal hospitals will be better than others for the treatment of cancer, and there may be an effort on the part of voluntary hospitals to make hay while the sun shines, and to get grants under this Bill for the purpose of assisting them in dealing with the general financial problems with which they are faced.
I think it is agreed by the voluntary hospital people themselves, both in London and the country generally, that the quality of these voluntary hospitals varies very much, and undoubtedly, some of them—it may be a minority—


will be unable to do an efficient and economical job of work under this Bill. It is important that whatever assistance goes to voluntary hospitals for work under the Bill, should be concentrated on those hospitals which can do that work effectively and should not be diffused and wasted on hospitals which cannot "deliver the goods" in accordance with the terms of the Bill. In that respect, local authorities have a great knowledge, and their representations, or the provisions of their schemes, ought not to be lightly upset by the Minister, out of kindness to particular voluntary hospitals which might be in financial difficulties and to which, perhaps, under some Parliamentary or constituency pressure, he might wish to do a good turn.
It is profoundly important, from the voluntary hospital point of view, that the help should go to the voluntary hospitals which can really do, as many of them can, a good job of work according to the requirements of this Bill, in the treatment of cancer. Therefore, we should like some protection from the possibility of the Minister forcing us to give assistance to particular voluntary hospitals in a way which might upset the balance of a scheme in a well-regulated area. I admit forthwith that there is a difficulty about the wording of paragraph (a) of the Amendment, in that if a local authority, acting on some abstract principle, refused to make any grant to any voluntary hospital, the provisions of the Measure could possibly be upset under this wording. It may need reconsideration in that respect. If it were the case, for example, that in a borough or county the municipal hospital was not well run for purposes of cancer treatment and the voluntary hospital was well run, then, I agree, it would be wrong if the county council or borough council refused a grant to the voluntary hospital and insisted on using all the money for its own hospital.
I am admitting the case against me, but I ask that the case in favour of my proposal should be recognised and that the Minister should do what he can to meet it. Under paragraph (b) the Amendment seeks to protect local authorities who are doing their job under the Bill, against other local authorities who are not doing so, who leave their people to be treated in other areas and who, through some technicality of the law, are able to

evade financial responsibility for the treatment of their own citizens. I raised this point in the Second Reading Debate and the Parliamentary Secretary was good enough in replying to refer to the fact in these words:
He raised the question of the right of recovery of the cost of their treatment from patients who come from outside the area of the local authority and are treated in the organisations of that local authority. It is not the intention of the Bill that the London County Council, for instance, should pay for the treatment of patients who come from outside their areas. If Berkshire or Buckinghamshire sent a patient to a London voluntary hospital, then, clearly Berkshire or Buckinghamshire must pay for the treatment."—[OFEICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1938; col. 1749, Vol. 342.]
He went on to say that it was for the county council to secure that they paid only for their own patients, and indicated that we had a fair case on the merits. All I ask now is proper legal protection—and here I am not speaking of the London County Council, because this is a general matter and affects the whole country. Suppose that some of the authorities in the counties surrounding Birmingham were to neglect their duty under this Bill and their citizens were allowed to drift into Birmingham to be treated under the Birmingham Corporation's scheme. That would be very unfair to the corporation. It would punish them for being progressive and efficient. They ought to have a remedy at law against those outside authorities and should be able to recover from those authorities a proper charge in respect of the treatment of patients from those areas. I think that is a reasonable request.
As I say, this question affects not only this mixed-up area of Greater London but every area in the country, and particularly those where there is a big city in the middle of a number of rather far-flung districts. We are asking only that each local authority shall bear the cost of the treatment of its own citizens. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction if only by an Amendment on the lines of paragraph (b). I admit there are technical drafting difficulties about paragraph (a). I do not want the Amendment to go further than our real intention, but I hope that at any rate the right hon. Gentleman will give us an indication of his administrative intentions under the Bill and perhaps he will be able to meet, substantially, the points which I have raised.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I think I can meet the right hon. Gentleman on both points. Like him, I see great difficulty in finding words to cover the points which he has in mind. He has very fairly indicated that the drafting of paragraph (a) of his Amendment would actually go further than he desires, and that he does not insist upon it. I think he indicated that he would be satisfied if he could get some idea of what the administrative purpose of the Minister was under the Bill, and an assurance that the Minister did not intend to take advantage of the great position of authority which this Measure would give him to show bias towards particular hospitals on the ground that they were doing their best and that if they were not admitted to a place under the scheme, it would go hardly with them when they were next appealing for subscriptions or when the board of governors next met. I give him that assurance in the most unequivocal terms. What I have in mind is the advantage of the patient, and only the advantage of the patient. If the work is being better done in one hospital than in another, whether it be municipal or voluntary or whether it is a case of one voluntary hospital against another, the interest of the patient must not only be paramount; it must be the only interest considered. I shall do nothing to throw work towards a voluntary hospital which would be incapable of properly performing it. I should consider that to do so was not merely sinning against the light as an administrator, but sinning against the laws of Aesculapius which some of us in the medical profession would perhaps regard as an even more binding obligation.
The only difficulty which arises is the difficulty so often mentioned—a difficulty which arises when the administration passes from one Minister to another. I do not think you could draft words to say that the Minister shall not show bias, because in fact the only way in which you can guard against bias is by being able to raise it on the Floor of the House. If the Minister is showing bias he can be hammered here, until the bias has been knocked out of him. I have already refused to shelter myself behind a consultative committee and statutory consultations, for this very reason—that I wish the responsibility to be here on the Floor of the House upon the Minister. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that

I have gone far to meet the position from the statutory point of view. His second point was that, either in London or Birmingham, it would be wrong if the ratepayers of those authorities were taxed for the treatment of patients for whom they had no real responsibility and that it would be wrong of authorities in surrounding areas to evade their obligations and leave the work of the treatment of their own people to those who were more ready to do it—that in fact the willing horse should take the heavy load.
I was interested in the point which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Second Reading. I have gone into it carefully with my legal advisers and they assure me positively that there is nothing in the Bill to suggest any obligation to provide treatment to persons outside the area of the local authority. No such obligation, I am told, is imposed by the Bill or could he imposed by the arrangements. The words of the Bill are:
It shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough in England to make arrangements to secure that the facilities for the treatment of persons suffering from cancer are adequate for the needs of the county or borough.
I am assured unequivocally that it would be impossible, under those words, to found a claim upon a county or borough to pay for treatment which went beyond that which was adequate for the needs of that county or borough. I dos not think anyone would say that the needs of a county or borough could be stretched to cover the treatment of all the cancer patients from outside that county or borough who might turn up in its hospitals. How we are to deal with the question of recovery is much better left for the arrangements which are proposed, but I can give an assurance to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that it is not the intention that a council should be under any obligation to provide treatment for persons who do not belong to its area. I have said that there is nothing in the drafting of the Bill which could compel such a burden to be imposed and in framing the arrangements I shall do my best, in consultation with the local authorities, both central local authorities such as those which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind and the other local authorities as well, in order to ensure a fair arrangement between the local authority from which a case may come and the local authority to which a case may go.


But the problem is too complicated to allow us to work this proposal into the terms of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that with that explanation the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to rely upon the consultations which I shall undertake to make and on the assurance of my legal advisers.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I think the Minister has fairly met the precise point in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. It is, perhaps, difficult to go beyond what he has said, and I am inclined to think my right hon. Friend will accept the assurance he has given. There is, however, a second point. The difficulty is not so much that the local authority is under no obligation to treat a person who comes from outside its area, but that in an area like London it is very difficult to check where a person does come from before treatment is given. It is cases like that which we are anxious to have met. It is within the experience of the London County Council, and I imagine of other large authorities, that when persons from outside the county have been treated, there is considerable difficulty in recovering the cost. I hope the Minister will direct close attention to that point. The question is not so much the obligation to take persons from outside, because in an emergency one does not want to turn a person away merely because he is domiciled outside the area. The trouble is that when we have given treatment and find a person is chargeable to another authority, if that authority refuses to pay we have no effective remedy. If the Minister would give consideration to that point, I think it would give satisfaction to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member will see that that difficulty is not met by this Amendment, because it says "person resident outside the area." What he presses now is the difficulty of ascertaining whether a person is or is not resident outside the area. While I am perfectly willing that that should be the principle upon which we should go, I think the details had better be left to be dealt with in the arrangements we are drawing up.

Mr. Silkin: I think there are difficulties in regard to wording and perhaps the

Amendment does not altogether meet the case.

5.35 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: The assurance which the Minister has given goes a very long way. My right hon. Friend said quite frankly that he spoke from the standpoint of the London County Council and other local authorities, and I may say with equal frankness that I am speaking now from the standpoint of voluntary hospitals. The attitude of voluntary hospitals, as I understand it, is that they do not desire—to use a phrase of my right hon. Friend—that there should be any particular grant to a particular hospital in the sense of supplementing the income which otherwise they might lack. The attitude of the voluntary hospitals is that, as in the case of arrangements with local authorities for the treatment of venereal disease, they should be paid for the work which by agreement they have undertaken to do. I do not think my right hon. Friend would dissent from that. I think it is in line with what he has in his mind, although the wording of this Amendment goes very far beyond that. I agree that there is great difficulty in framing an Amendment, and I think that upon this point the undertaking which the Minister gives is satisfactory, but I am not so clear on the other point in regard to the defraying of expenses incurred in relation to persons outside the area of the county.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), with his great and ripe experience in these matters, has spoken of the difficulties of recovering from other authorities. The difficulty, as I visualise it in the case of voluntary hospitals, is how and from whom the voluntary hospitals are to recover expenditure in respect of a patient who comes from outside the area of the council which has jurisdiction over that hospital. It is very difficult indeed, and I think impossible, for a voluntary hospital to refuse to treat a patient just because he comes from outside the area. It is common knowledge that many voluntary hospitals, certainly in London, by reason of the facilities they offer and the reputation they have gained, receive patients from every part of the country. If there is an arrangement that they are to reserve a certain amount of accommodation for London patients that does not mean, I take it, that they would be entitled to


refuse patients from outside. The London County Council, according to the statement made by the Minister, from which I do not in the least dissent, would be under no obligation to pay the hospital.
My concern is to see that the voluntary hospitals should have some means of recovering the cost of treatment of outside patients from outside authorities. I am not quite sure what arrangement should be made. It might be possible to ask the London County Council to act as a sort of agent for recovery, although I do not suppose my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney would accept that position with much gratification, or it may be necessary to insert something in the Bill. I understood the Minister to say that he would deal with this as a matter of administrative practice. Speaking subject to correction, I am not quite sure whether in the way the Bill is framed he could make it compulsory upon, let us say, the County Council of Berkshire to pay for a patient taken into the Westminster Hospital in the County of London. I am not sure that he can do that by the exercise of his administrative functions, and I would ask him to consider whether there should not be some specific legislation enabling him to do so.

5.40 p.m.

Sir F. Fremantle: I was alarmed by the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and the reception given to it by the Minister. The Bill relates only to the obligation of a county or county borough to deal with its own area. I am concerned with those counties or county boroughs which cannot provide arrangements for the treatment of cancer. When this scheme was being debated it was made clear that, instead of being an enormous scheme covering all the 1,900 local authorities it must be confined to a few definite centres where radium could be properly used by radiologists and others who are sufficiently trained in the extremely difficult work that will be required of them. It has been pointed out that there are comparatively few such men. Therefore, it will be very difficult for some of the smaller or more scattered counties to provide any such scheme. Are the people in those counties going to be left out of the scheme compulsorily? We are being asked to provide a large sum of money for contri-

butions under the scheme. There is a limited amount of radium, and it is going to be distributed to a few centres. Are the others to be excluded? Is it going to be compulsory for the particular areas favoured with the largesse of Parliament and the taxpayer in the form of radium contributions to include the less favoured areas? I ask the question in order to have the situation made clear.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I would like at once to clear up that point, and I would refer my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) to the Clauses of the Bill we have already passed. If he will look at Clause 1 he will see that Sub-section (2, b) says:
the arrangements submitted by any such council shall include arrangements … for the treatment of cancer either in hospitals maintained by the council or in hospitals maintained by other councils or local authorities or in voluntary hospitals.
I think that meets the point taken up by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) and the hon. Member for St. Albans. It is provided in Sub-section (1) that the council of every county and county borough must make arrangements to secure that the facilities for the treatment of persons suffering from cancer are adequate. That means that a person in a remote county does come under the Bill. The council of a remote county must make arrangements to see that the facilities for treatment are adequate for the needs of the inhabitants of the county. Moreover, in the case of remote counties in England and Wales and Scotland arrangements must be made for patients travelling from those remote areas to the centres where facilities exist. It is provided in Subsection (2, c) that there shall be arrangements for the payment, in such cases as the council considers necessary, of travelling expenses reasonably incurred by persons for the purpose of availing themselves of cancer services. Therefore, I think the obligation is clear that an authority may discharge its duty by making provision in some cases for treatment outside its boundary and for paying travelling expenses to persons passing from remote to central regions for treatment.
As to the specific point put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth as to the position of a voluntary hospital which was treating


such a person, I will not say that that cannot be provided against in the Statute, but it can easily be provided for in the arrangements we propose to approve. As he has asked me to look into that point I will do so during the later stages of the Bill.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: In the circumstances I do not propose to press the Amendment. I am not at all happy, however, with what the Minister has said about paragraph (b) of the Amendment. I do not think we shall have any statutory protection at all under the declaration of the Bill that it is the duty of any local authority to make proper provision. That imposes a duty on the local authority, but it does not give us a right to get money back from a local authority in respect of expenses which we have incurred.

Mr. Elliot: I think that that is true, but the right hon. Gentleman is probably looking at it only from the reception end and not from the despatching end. There is no intention that an authority that sends a patient shall evade its obligations.

Mr. Morrison: But suppose a county outside Manchester—I am sure in the case of Manchester it will not be so, for I am certain they will have a good scheme—but suppose a county contiguous to a great borough, or a county borough within a county where the county has a thoroughly efficient scheme and the borough has not. The county borough makes a scheme, it is submitted to the Minister, and it is approved. The citizens of the county borough, however, know that they will get better treatment if they go to a hospital of the county council or, it may be, vice versa, and the county people will know that they can get better treatment in the town, which probably will be the case because the towns have more money. A patient goes to the town because he thinks he will have a better time or he likes it or it may be more convenient. In due course the receiving authority wants to be paid. Any decent local authority will pay, but authorities do not always do it. The London County Council have had cases in which it has been kind and considerate to people who have come into the hospitals in the county, and the outside local authority, having a technical point of view, have

slid out of their obligations. It is not playing the game.
It is not a matter of politics, because such local authorities have been of more than one kind, and I do not like it. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the London County Council are not going to be exploited by anybody under this Bill. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) put the point of the voluntary hospitals. I have no objection to his putting that point, but if a voluntary hospital is within the administrative county of London, the County Council are not going to be landed with the cost of the patients of such a hospital, no matter where they came from. I should have thought it easy to find words to cover this point in the Bill. If the Minister cannot find them for the Bill, can he find them for the scheme, and if he can find them for the scheme will they have legal authority unless they are in the major legal instrument, namely, the Act?
On paragraph (a) I accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, because I think it reasonable in the circumstances, and I do not see that he can do much more for us on that point; but I would ask him, without prejudice either way, whether he will look further into paragraph (b) between now and the Report stage. I will ask the London County Council officers to do the same, and no doubt other local authorities will do it. Our officers might confer to see whether we cannot find words to cover us in the Bill and to give the Minister the necessary authority to provide properly for it in the arrangements he makes under the Bill.

Mr. Elliot: I will certainly do that.

Mr. Morrison: In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 14, after the first "the," insert "board or."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.50 p.m.

Mr. White: I should like to take the opportunity of addressing an inquiry to


my right hon. Friend on Sub-section (6). Inquiries which reach me lead me to believe that there is a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to the meaning of this Sub-section. The general purpose of this Bill is, of course, curative, but there is the section of treatment which deals with incurable cases. Sub-section (6) precludes the possibility of the establishment by any council of a general domiciliary service by medical practitioners. There is apprehension in the minds of some people that this may preclude any domiciliary treatment by a visiting nurse or a medical practitioner in incurable cases. If there is anything in Sub-section (6) which would render nugatory those services of mercy it is felt it would be a great misfortune.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I should like to raise the question of home nursing and to ask the Minister to give an assurance that he will be prepared to recognise home nursing in the arrangements submitted to him for approval under this Clause. The Minister has already made it clear that this Bill is not necessarily a Radium Bill. It is described in the explanatory memorandum as a Bill to provide facilities for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, whether by radium or any other means. While radium treatment is necessary in hospitals, there may be the possibility of giving treatment in a satisfactory way in the home through nurses without reference to radium. This would particularly be the case where a hospital was unable any further to benefit a patient and where the patient nevertheless requires a good deal of care such as could be given by a skilled nurse. Nurses might also be employed at home in following up cases and reporting to a hospital about the treatment, and possibly reporting that further treatment might be desirable. There is no intention of asking the Minister to authorise the setting up by any council of general domiciliary services by medical practitioners. We are not anxious to evade that provision, but it is thought that home nursing in certain circumstances would be desirable and beneficial and be a saving of money to the local authorities. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that he will be prepared to recognise home nursing as part of the arrangements submitted by local authorities under this Clause.

5.45 p.m.

Colonel Nathan: The point I would like to raise on this Clause is with regard to the clinical treatment to be included in the schemes sent to the Minister, and the attitude he will adopt to them in giving or withholding his sanction. The opinion is widely held that to establish clinics for the purpose of diagnosing and treating cancer would have a detrimental effect upon the public mind and would be likely to prevent persons going to the clinic in the early stages of the disease as it is essential that they should. Certain of the professional bodies which have considered this matter, and certainly the voluntary hospitals, would consider the creation of diagnostic centres, however labelled, with great alarm as being calculated to prevent patients going there when they might go if the clinics were associated with and organically part of some hospital, because it would at once be known by all their friends and relations that they were or suspected to be sufferers from cancer, with the unfortunate psychological effect which experience has shown that that knowledge has. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will bear in mind the profound concern which would be created if it were proposed to establish clinics independently of existing hospital organisation.
Experience has shown, with regard, for instance, to tuberculosis clinics, which were established some years ago and which have been most beneficial, that they have prevented the great teaching hospitals from acquiring that clinical material which is required for the training of the new generation of medical men. I hope, therefore, that the Minister, in considering the schemes, will bear in mind the necessity of ensuring that by the attachment of clinics to the great voluntary hospitals which are dealing with cancer opportunities will be given to those who are in the teaching schools there of obtaining the necessary clinical material without which they cannot succeed with research or training for their profession.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I was thinking when listening to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) how wise I have been to indicate to the House my desire to get the best possible technical advice in the Cancer Committee


which I have mentioned. This is just the sort of problem which one would desire to review with the technical advisers. I think the House and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) will agree that it will be sound administration to seek that advice, although of course the whole responsibility rests on myself. The two important points which were raised by the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) related to Subsection (6), which says that there shall be no power to establish a domiciliary medical service. I think that would also clearly apply to a domiciliary nursing service, but I do not think there is any intention of precluding the following-up visit of a nurse to a patient or some investigation by a medical practitioner of a patient's progress. I do not think, however, that within the plan of the Bill a domiciliary medical or nursing service should be established.

Mr. White: I should like to know whether there is anything in the phrase "general domiciliary service" which would prevent treatment in cases such as I have indicated being carried out elsewhere than in the hospital.

Mr. Elliot: I think such cases would be more properly treated in hospital than in the home. I think it would be the desire of all of us that in those final stages the treatment should be given in hospitals. I do not think we could take the responsibility for persons in that condition undergoing treatment in a private house.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: The first few words of the Clause read:
It shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough in England.
I have raised this point with the right hon. Gentleman before, and I can assure him that the Welsh people are very much disappointed that he has supposed that the word "England" in this Bill covers Wales. He had better know that Wales is a country on its own, just as Scotland is, and we want to know whether he means that "England" used in this connection includes Wales. Is it not a fact that up to a few years ago whenever England was mentioned in legislation it was mentioned in conjunction with Wales,

and that it is only recently that Wales has been omitted from the phraseology of Parliamentary Bills? Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say how it comes about that this insult has been given to the country of my birth?

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I greatly regret that any insult should have been levelled at the country of the hon. Gentleman's birth, but surely if he felt it was such an insult he should have put down an Amendment to remove the stigma. The Bill has been before the House for some time.

Mr. Rhys Davies: We will do it later.

Mr. Elliot: Surely the hon. Member cannot have felt the insult very keenly, or he would have put down an Amendment before. Naturally no insult was intended. We were following administrative practice, but I think I could shelter myself behind the fact that it is a little late to call my attention to the omission on the question of the Clause standing part.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is in the difficulty of being a Welshman representing a Lancashire constituency, but on Report stage we may have an Amendment put down by a Welshman who really comes from Wales and really represents Wales.

Mr. David Adams: As regards Subsection (6) I should like to inquire what is the position of a local authority such as that at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which already has a general domiciliary service carried out by medical practitioners. I take it there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the continuation of that domiciliary service.

Mr. Elliot: The Sub-section says:
Nothing in this Section shall authorise the establishment. …'
That will not take away any powers which are already exercised.

CLAUSE 2.—(Financial provisions.)

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out "all councils," and insert "the council."
This Clause deals with the financial provisions, and among other things provides that the Exchequer grants shall be made by reference to the additional cost incurred by local authorities, a cost which is based upon the estimated net average cost either throughout the country or in particular areas. It is the object of this Amendment to provide that in calculating the average net cost it shall be the average net cost of the particular council and not the average throughout the country. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the present cost of administering hospitals varies very considerably, and there is no reason to suppose that the additional cost of administering this particular service will not vary in the same way. The cost varies by reason of differences in the standard of treatment, differences in the cost of living in different parts of the country, the varying number of beds in different hospitals—an important factor—and the fact that some hospital authorities are more extravagant than others and that some are unduly economical.
Therefore, I submit that it is unfair to take an average of costs throughout the country and to base the Exchequer grants upon that. An average really means nothing when you take into account the wide range of costs in different hospitals. In municipal hospitals the costs per bed per week range from £1 3s. 9d. to £7 3s. 11d., and an average based upon those extreme figures would be really meaningless. In voluntary hospitals the average cost per bed per week ranges from £2 8s. 10d. to £7 16s. I submit that in calculating the Exchequer grant the fair thing is to take the average cost to the particular authority, which is what would be done under this Amendment, or to take particular classes of authorities, such as the county boroughs and county councils, and average each class. I am not particular whether the grant is based upon each hospital's costs or upon the costs in a particular class of hospitals, as long as they are grouped together in some form and the average is not one for the whole country. I understand that the Minister has recognised this difficulty, because upon Second Reading he said:
To meet a point made by local authority representatives in all parts of the House … about the undesirability of having the same unit for the whole of the United Kingdom, provision is made whereby different units can be prescribed for different areas, so that we are not to have the same unit

applicable, say, to Denbighshire and to the London County Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1938; col. 1655, Vol. 342.]
In fact, the Minister has not made that provision in the Bill, or, rather, it is still possible for the Minister—not perhaps this particular Minister, but some successor less scrupulous than he is—to take an average over the whole country. We are anxious that the Minister should do what he himself has recognised to be desirable and make it impossible to base a grant upon an average for the whole country. He should base it either upon the actual cost to a particular council or on the average for a group of authorities either those in the particular locality or a comparable group.

6.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): As the hon. Member knows, the question is a complex one, and if my right hon. Friend the Minister cannot accept the Amendment as it stands I hope that I shall be able to reassure the hon. Member upon the important point which he has raised. I understand that what he requires is that the expenditure of a council under the Bill shall be estimated by reference to the estimated average net expenditure of that council or that class of council and not that of the average expenditure of all councils. His Amendment, if carried, would restrict my right hon. Friend to only one method of assessment of grant, and that is a position which, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, my right hon. Friend cannot accept, for clearly there will be cases in which the standard of expenditure over a large number of councils will be approximately the same and in which undoubtedly it will be convenient to group councils together for the purpose of establishing a unit of expenditure. What my right hon. Friend desires and what this Bill gives him is a discretionary power, a power of considering each case upon its merits. That power is given in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (8) of this Clause where it says:
(b) may also provide that the amount of any expenditure so incurred in respect of any particular services by a council, or by a council of any class specified in the directions, shall be estimated by reference to the estimated average net annual expenditure incurred in respect of those services by all councils or by councils of that class.
The whole object of the Sub-section is to make it possible for a separate unit of


expenditure to be fixed for a group of councils of the same class if a case is established for such separate treatment. I know that the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) had in mind the particular case of London, and I can give this assurance that if the Minister were satisfied that the circumstances in London were different from those of any other authorities it would be permissible for him, under the terms of the Clause as drafted, to approve a separate unit for any particular part of the service for London. Whether this will or will not be done will, of course, depend upon the facts when the proposed arrangements are submitted to him, but, as I have said, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it if in the opinion of my right hon. Friend the facts warrant it. Indeed, there is a specific provision in the Bill to secure what the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) desires.

Mr. Silkin: Is it possible in the case of the London County Council for the Minister to take the view that London stands in a class by itself? If he is prepared to accept that possibility I will not press it further.

Mr. Bernays: That is the assurance which I am advised that I can give.

Mr. Silkin: On that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Loans to National Radium Trust.)

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(3) The principal of and the interest on any sums lent under this Section shall by virtue of this Act be charged on the undertaking and all the revenues of the said Trust.
This Amendment is moved in order to secure an economy in legal costs. I understand that as the Bill is drafted it would be necessary for the National Radium Trust to execute legal instruments in respect of each loan received from the Department. If the Committee accept this Amendment I am told that it will simplify the legal procedure and documents in respect of each transaction and thereby reduce costs.

Amendment, agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Prohibition of certain advertisements.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Storey.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: On a point of Order. I understand that the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends is not to be called—In page 6, line 1, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 35, page 7, and to insert:
(1) On and after the first day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, a person shall not knowingly publish, or be a party to the publication of, any advertisement or announcement which holds out, refers to, or recommends any remedy, treatment, or preparation whatsoever to be used or applied externally or internally in connection with the treatment, relief, or prevention of cancer or the distinctive symptoms of cancer.
(2) If any person contravenes any of the provisions of the foregoing Sub-section he shall be liable on summary conviction, in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and in the case of a subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such a fine and such imprisonment:
Provided that nothing in this Section shall apply to any advertisement by any local authority or by the governing body of any voluntary hospital or to any advertisement sent only to duly qualified medical practitioners or to wholesale or retail chemists for the purpose of their business or to any advertisement published to any persons undergoing training with a view to becoming registered medical practitioners, registered nurses, or registered pharmacists, or to any advertisement published only in a publication of a technical character intended for circulation among persons of the classes mentioned in this proviso, or to any advertisement published with the consent of the Minister of Health or the Secretary of State for Scotland.
(3) It shall be the duty of every food and drugs authority within their area to enforce the provisions of this Section.
While I do not propose to insist, and much less to challenge your Ruling, I should be glad if you would give me your guidance on certain matters arising in connection with this Amendment. When I began to attempt to amend the Clause I found that by omitting the words "by him" in the first part, it was possible to reconstruct the Clause on much simpler lines. What is our position if, after we


have laboured on a great number of detailed Amendments, we find that my contention was right? Our labours will have been in vain, and we shall be able to reject this Clause and accept mine only by acknowledging that our labours, which might have extended over many days, have been in vain. When we are dealing with a Bill as a whole we naturally take the Second Reading before we attempt to amend the Bill in Committee, but when we are dealing with a Clause it would seem that we invert that procedure. We take the Committee stage first and then the Second Reading—which is what the Motion "that the Clause stand part of the Bill" really amounts to. Is there no method by which we can challenge the principle of the Clause before we proceed to amend it in detail?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): There is no other method. That is the Motion upon which one must challenge the whole of the Clause, and there is no other way.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Storey: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, to leave out "by him."
The purpose of the Amendment and of the three Amendments which follow upon the Paper—and which, for the convenience of the Committee, I hope you will allow me to deal with together, because they are consequential upon the first—are intended to strengthen the provisions of the Bill in relation to advertisements consisting of offers of treatment and remedies for cancer. I think the Committee will agree that the sick and the poor should be protected against unqualified persons who attempt to prey upon their fear and credulity. As the Clause is drafted, the prohibition applies only to the person who offers the treatment or the remedy and it does not apply to the person who aids and abets, such as the person who is the publisher of the advertisement. The Clause thus leaves a loophole which may defeat the purpose of the Clause. For instance, as the "Times" pointed out in a leading article, a quack residing outside the jurisdiction of the English courts may order advertisements by post and no one would be liable to prosecution under the Clause as it is at present drafted. Nor could the publisher be prosecuted under the common law as accessory to a crime.
The purpose of my Amendment is to make the publisher directly responsible, a

principle which is already adopted by Parliament in the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917. That anyone connected with newspapers should seek to place restrictions upon them might at first sight seem strange, but I would remind the Committee that all reputable newspapers have for a long time refused to accept such advertisements. The Amendments which I am moving would strengthen their hands against those few publications which attempt still to profit by taking such advertisements, and would compel these papers to adopt a higher standard. For those reasons the Newspaper Society, which represents the whole of the provincial Press of this country, have considered the matter since I placed these Amendments upon the Paper, and they have expressed their complete approval. I hope that the Committee will agree to these Amendments.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: In default of my own and, I think, better method, I support the proposal of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). We are entitled to an explanation from the Minister as to how it came about that the Clause was placed before us in so lenient a form, as it applies to newspaper advertisements. It is, of course, very honourable in the Newspaper Society to wish to reform the law, and I readily acknowledge that so far as cancer advertisements are concerned both the provincial and the national Press can come into court with almost clean hands. I hope they will not come in a self-righteous spirit, because the vigilance which they extend to cancer advertisements does not extend to advertisements of other quack medicines. If the hon. Member will study the discussions on this subject in the legislative assemblies of Canada and Australia he will find that one of the greatest difficulties to enforcing provisions against advertisements of quack medicines arises in those countries by reason of the lax state of the law in this country.
The drafting of this proposal in this way seems to call for some explanation by the Minister. I want to read what the "Times" said about it. That newspaper does not advertise quack medicines for cancer or, I think, any other medicines of that character. It said:
Close scrutiny of these Clauses shows that they leave certain loopholes which may seri-


ously reduce the effectiveness of the law. Manifestly"—
that is the word it used—
if it is to be an offence for certain classes of ill-qualified people to advertise their untrustworthy wares it should also be an offence to abet them by publishing their advertisements.
The "Times" thought that it was manifest that the offence of publishing should be joined to the offence of offering a quack medicine for treatment. How does it then come about that this was not also manifest to the Government? There has been a tendency on the part of the Government to legislate with tenderness towards the Press of this country. A Food and Drugs Bill was before us a short time ago. It was a very extensive, consolidating Measure, and included many valuable new provisions, including one of a similar nature against advertisements of adulterated medicines and so on. After constructing most careful safeguards for the public, what did the Minister do? He produced what is known as the Joker Clause and he let out the newspapers. He said that, provided such advertisements were accepted by a newspaper in the ordinary course of its business, no offence would be committed.
When we legislate on these lines, greatly as we may desire the favour or fear the frowns, of the newspapers, we ought to act without fear or favour. There is the tendency of the House and the Government, in spite of the crowded state of the legislative programme, to reform the Official Secrets Act and the Libel Act. Anything that the newspapers ask for they appear to be able to get. When legislation is being introduced for the protection of the public, safeguards for newspapers alone are put into the Bill. The Minister owes an explanation to the Committee of how it came about that the Clause was drafted in this way.

6.25 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): Those who speak on Amendments from this Box are in danger of being attacked from one of two sides. If a Minister resists an Amendment he is asked: "What is the use of the Committee stage?" If he is prepared to accept an Amendment it is said: "Why do you produce a Bill before the House in such a state that it requires amendment in Committee?" The criticism to

which we have just listened seems to fall into the second category. My right hon. Friend commends to the Committee this Amendment and the three following Amendments. In the Bill as drafted and introduced, the main and substantive offence was placed upon the originator of an advertisement. There does not seem to me anything particularly shocking in a provision which fixes the substantive offence on the originator and leaves to the Common Law principle of aiding and abetting people whose complicity is such as to justify proceedings against them on ordinary principles for aiding and abetting. My right hon. Friend agrees that this strengthening of the Clause is desirable.
I am bound to say that though the hon. Gentleman opposite may feel, as he does, that some criticism can be levelled against my right hon. Friend for introducing the Bill in this form, I believe that other hon. Members will feel that it has been an advantage to have this Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend, who is himself in touch with and concerned with the Press of this country, and that he should propose this Amendment with the full approval of the Press and commend it to the House in the terms which he has used. The point is quite simple, and my right hon. Friend commends all the Amendments to the Committee on the ground on which they were moved. I believe it is common ground and I hope that the Committee will approve of all the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 6, line 8, leave out from "description," to "in," in line 9.

In line 34, leave out paragraph (i).

In line 38, at the end, insert:
but without prejudice to the liability of any other person."—[Mr. Storey.]

6.29 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 6, line 43, to leave out "to," and to insert:
so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of.
This is a purely drafting Amendment. Sub-section (4, a) says that it shall be
a defence for the person charged to prove that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only to persons of "—


certain classes. Strictly construed, that would make it an offence to publish in any way except to these classes of person. The Amendment proposed would make the paragraph read:
that the advertisement to which the proceedings relate was published only so far as was reasonably necessary to bring it to the notice of persons.
It is a small and rather technical point, but the words are obviously an improvement.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The Attorney-General may be correct in saying that the Bill as drafted might have been open to an unreasonably strict construction, but his ingenuity, when it comes to relieving his friends, knows no bounds, and it appears to me that this Amendment is open to an extremely generous construction from the point of view of advertisers. I would point out that a defence is provided in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (4) which entirely covers cases where it is necessary to publish an advertisement in a journal of a technical character having a limited circulation, and surely that gives adequate protection in the case of bona fide advertisements circulated to technical and qualified persons. If the Attorney-General could give us an example or two of the kind of advertisements that he desires by this Amendment to leave outside the Act, I should not feel it necessary to resist it.

6.32 p.m.

The Attorney-General: Sub-section (4) deals only with advertisements published in a publication of restricted circulation, and I think it can be reasonably claimed that an advertisement intended bona fide for persons of certain classes—for example, local authorities, registered medical practitioners, and so on—might get into the hands of certain people who were connected with those classes but who were not actually within the classes specified, or of others who might have to deal with the transmission of the advertisement to the specified body. In this Amendment there is no sinister intention, I assure the hon. Gentleman, to open any door by which the provisions of the Clause might be evaded, but it was felt, on scrutinising it, and the hon. Gentleman agrees, that as drafted the words were open to an excessively strict construction. I think the words it is proposed to insert will meet that difficulty and will make the Sub-section more clear.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I do not wish to press the matter unduly, but would point out that, if the publication accidentally came into the hands of someone other than the persons named in the Clause, it would be impossible to secure a conviction against the publisher of the advertisement if it were a mere leakage of a secret or an accidental occurrence such as a layman buying a medical journal; but that the advertisers may desire to advertise in a publication covering not only one of the technical or specialised classes, but the whole of them together—doctors, nurses, chemists, persons undergoing training to undertake any of these activities, or persons carrying on any business which included the sale or supply of certain appliances. They might advertise in any publication of a technical character. If, however, the Attorney-General is satisfied on the point, I do not intend to delay the Committee by pressing the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 2, at the end, insert:

"(i) members of a local authority or of the governing body of a voluntary hospital;
(ii) (without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing sub-paragraph) persons concerned in making or carrying into effect arrangements under Section one of this Act;"—[Mr. Elliot.]

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Storey: I beg to move, in page 7, line 18, to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert:
(c) that the said advertisement was published in such circumstances that he did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication thereof.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give a defence to persons who act bona fide. Paragraph (c), as drafted, applies only to an advertisement in the package containing the article, but the Committee have now imposed a liability on the publishers of an advertisement relating to the cure or treatment of cancer, and it is only right that protection should be given to those who have no reason to believe that they are taking part in publication. For instance, in the case of a newsagent distributing a reputable paper, it would be manifestly unfair if, should that paper through an oversight publish a cancer cure advertisement, he was liable to prosecution. If, on the other hand, he was distributing a paper which had often


been convicted of publishing such advertisements, then he would deserve no such protection. The purpose of the Amendment is merely to give protection to those who act bona fide, and I hope the Committee will agree to it.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask the Attorney-General what would be the effect of this proposal if an advertisement, instead of expressly advertising a nostrum for the cure of cancer, advertised something for, for example, the cure or treatment of tumours or something of that kind? It appears to me that this provision might well be used as a defence in such a case, and such a form of advertising in this illicit way might evade the law by merely refraining from naming the disease. I do not wish to suggest that this is likely to be a prevalent practice; there are certainly not many reputable newspapers which advertise cures for cancer; but, after all, we are legislating to prevent the black sheep from carrying out this malpractice, and I should like to be assured that we are not leaving a loophole here.

6.39 p.m.

The Attorney-General: In order to answer the hon. Gentleman's question one must go back to Sub-section (1). He is supposing a case in which the advertisement does not in terms use the word "cancer," and, of course, the point arises, not only on this Amendment, but on the question of the substantive offence under the Clause. The words which we have already passed in Sub-section (1, b) enact that no person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement
referring to any article, or articles of any description, manufactured, produced, imported, sold or offered for sale by him in terms which are calculated to lead to the use of that article, or articles of that description, in the treatment of cancer.
The case that the hon. Gentleman quotes would be dealt with under the construction of these words, which I think are sufficiently wide. The present Amendment is directed to a different object. It would enable a defence to be set up by someone who did not know and had no reason to believe that he was taking part in the publication of such an advertisement, and this case would not arise until one had decided whether, having regard to the words of Sub-section (1), it came

within the Clause at all. If it arose, and, although the word "cancer" was not used, the terms of the advertisement were plainly such as to direct the mind of the ordinary member of the public to the fact that the advertisement was one for the treatment of cancer, I cannot think that the editor or person concerned would have much chance of convincing the judge that on that ground he ought to get off under this new Sub-section, which is really intended to meet, and which I think does adequately meet, the case where a man can say that in the circumstances he had no reason to believe he was taking part in the publication. I think the Committee would desire that in such a case the penalty should fall, and fall alone, on the person who was the originator of the advertisement.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 31, leave out from "apply," to the first "by," in line 32, and insert "in respect of any advertisement published."—[Mr. Elliot.]

6.42 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 7, line 33, at the end, to insert:
or by any person acting with the sanction of the Minister.
This will empower the Minister, if he considers it to be in the public interest so to do, to give a sanction which will exempt any person or organisation from the operation of the Clause. There was a similar provision in the Venereal Diseases Act, 1917, and there might be cases under this Measure in which it would be desirable to give such exemption.

Amendment agreed to.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 7, line 34, to leave out from the beginning to "to," and to insert:
(6) It shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough.
This would make the Sub-section read:
It shall be the duty of the council of every county and county borough to institute proceedings under this Section.
On previous occasions, when we have been legislating along these lines, we have not only created the offence, but have laid a mandate upon some body to enforce the provision. For example, when we created a number of offences under the Food and Drugs Act, we gave the


local authority the power, in addition to enforcing the provisions of the Act to take proceedings under that Act at its discretion. In addition to this assurance of effective action, we gave to the Minister power to substitute his own authority for that of the local authority should it default. The present Bill, however, as drafted, merely gives a power to the local authority to institute proceedings, but lays no duty upon anyone, and, if the Clause is not amended on the lines I suggest, much water will have flowed under the bridges, and perhaps many cancer cures will have been advertised, before any proceedings are taken. My Amendment would make it the duty of the council of every county and county borough to take proceedings in case of infringement of the Section.

6.44 p.m.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend thinks that this would make an improvement in the drafting of the Clause. At present it is simply left at large, with a power to all local authorities. It is true that under the Food and Drugs Act the duty is placed on the appropriate authorities under that Act to institute proceedings when offences are committed. My right hon. Friend agrees with the hon. Gentleman as to the desirability of putting this as a specific duty on the cancer authorities, and, as I have said, considers that this will be an improvement on the Clause as drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: As one who has been interested in public health questions for a long time, I look upon this Clause as extremely valuable. It is well known that there have been very widely spread advertisements professing to treat, and in some cases to cure, this terrible disease. I think the result of the passing of this Bill into law will undoubtedly be a saving of many lives [An HON. MEMBER: "And hard cash"] and, as an hon. Member observes, much hard cash which is spent as a result of these advertisements. It has been well demonstrated to-day, and I think it ought to be made generally public, that there is usually only one opportunity for dealing

with cancer, and that is in its initial stages, where there must be diagnosis. X-ray examination, and radium or other treatment. Once the public recognise that this is the procedure that ought to be followed, many lives may be saved. We are on the right line, and it would be of general advantage to medical science if the principle contained in this Clause could be extended to cover other branches of medical treatment. I do not know what communications other Members have received since the Bill was introduced, but I have had many from constituents expressing the view that it would be a great hardship if there were to be a general attack on treatment by non-registered persons of this or any other disease. It is suggested that this would be an infringement of the right of the individual to seek treatment in the best possible field. I hope that this measure will be a great corrective to that point of view.

CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 8, line 10, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 12.—[Mr. Elliot.]

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Application to Scotland.)

6.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 9, to leave out lines 1 to 3.
This Amendment and the following Amendment are drafting Amendments, arising from verbal alterations made in Clause 4.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 31, at the end, insert:
(b) for any reference to the Minister of Health, except in Section three of this Act, there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of Health for Scotland."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Hunter: I beg to move, in page 9, line 32, to leave out paragraph (b).
Under this paragraph, it is feared, Scottish local authorities might be compelled to erect special hospitals for the treatment of cancer. They do not think that that is necessary. They prefer that their case should be covered by Clause 1 of the Bill, which deals with voluntary and other hospitals. We think that the Bill will be satisfactory with this paragraph removed.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I gather from my hon. Friend's brief speech that the point he put is the only matter of concern to himself and his friends. I will not, therefore, deal with the wider aspects of the Amendment, but only with the particular point which he has raised. My right hon. Friend thinks that under Clause 1 the power of the Department to require that there shall be adequate provision for cancer treatment in every area will be sufficient, and if it is thought desirable to make plain that this paragraph does not necessarily mean that special hospitals should be built he is prepared to consider redrafting the paragraph to make that plain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Hunter: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, at the end, to insert:
Provided—

(i) that the said expenses shall not exceed the produce of a rate of one halfpenny in the pound for any year levied in any area, and
(ii) it shall be the duty of the county or town council to recover from any person to whom they have provided services under Section one of this Act or from any person legally liable to maintain that person a reasonable charge in respect of the expenses incurred by the council in the provision of the said services, or if the council are satisfied that the person from whom such charge is recoverable is unable by reason of circumstances other than his own default, to pay the whole of such charge, such part thereof, if any, as he is, in the opinion of the council, able to pay."

The purpose of this Amendment is to restrict liability for expenditure by local authorities. Local authorities in Scotland are beginning to feel alarmed, as no doubt local authorities are elsewhere as to the unrestricted liabilities to which they are exposed. They do not know where their liabilities will cease. They would be glad if the Government could see their way

to restrict the liability of the local authorities so that it would not exceed a halfpenny in the £ on the rates. They think that would be sufficient. The block grant system leaves them unable to know where their expenditure will end. The second part of the Amendment provides that local authorities shall have powers to press for payment from those who obtain services from the local authorities for the treatment of cancer and to obtain costs from people according to their ability to pay. It is not proposed to take anything from people who cannot afford to pay. That is the same principle as is contained in the Act dealing with maternity and child welfare, and we are merely asking that this Measure should be put on the same basis as that.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I suggest that this Amendment should not be accepted. I always thought that the proverbial meanness of Scotland was a joke, but I am beginning to think that the Scotsman is even more mean than he admits himself to be. I shall be astonished if the cost of treating cancer under this Measure will be anything like a halfpenny in the £ in any case. But if the hon. Gentleman is able to get the second provision inserted in the Bill it will be detrimental to the treatment of cancer in this country, for there are some people who, if they are told beforehand that they are to be mulcted in considerable costs, will not submit themselves to treatment. Municipalities have always borne the cost of treating infectious diseases, and I thought we had almost reached the stage of regarding cancer in the same light. I have always thought this Government stupid, but I do not think they are stupid enough to accept the Amendment which has just been moved.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Hunter: I always understood that hon. Members opposite were strong believers in the principle that the State should carry burdens which were national and not local. This expenditure would come within that category. Therefore the hon. Member is arguing against the principle of his own party. Here is an opportunity to support the principle that the State should carry the greater burden. I cannot imagine anything more inconsistent than the attitude of the hon. Member.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: This Amendment consists of two parts. The first aims at limiting the expenditure of the local authorities, and the other is designed to enforce the recovery of expenses from patients. With regard to the first part, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has, rather surprisingly, accused our countrymen of the vice of meanness. He did not, however, contrast it with the well-known generosity of the Welsh. About that I do not know a great deal. All I can think of is a well-known nursery rhyme which suggests that the Welsh are not always so acute as they might be in perceiving the distinction between meum and tuum.
On the Second Reading, I pointed out that the total estimated expenditure for Scotland would be approximately £100,000 and that the Government grant would amount to £50,000 in Scotland, leaving £50,000 to be borne by the local authorities, and, since the total product of a penny rate in Scotland amounted to £160,000, the average burden would be less than one-third of a penny in the £. The hon. Member for Westhoughton, I think, is justified in his statement that in hardly any case is the expenditure likely, in fact, to amount to so much as a halfpenny in the £. But I do not think we could accept an Amendment of this kind, because it might frustrate the purposes of the Bill by preventing some area situated at a considerable distance from a main centre from sending patients to that centre for the purpose of diagnosis. It might be found in one area that the expense would amount to more than a halfpenny in the £, and I do not think we should be justified in depriving that area of proper facilities for the adequate treatment of cancer on account of an exceptional possibility of this kind.
With regard to the second part of the Amendment, Section 28 of the Local Government Act, 1929, enabled local authorities to recover expenses from patients if they could afford to pay them, and legal opinion has been consulted, and we are advised by our own legal advisers—and I believe that others who have consulted legal opinion have received the same advice—that that is in fact mandatory, that is to say, the local authority are bound to recover expenses for hospital treatment from patients who can afford to pay. In any case we could not accept

this Amendment, because it would apply not only to hospital treatment but also to diagnosis, and it is our intention that diagnosis, in the case of the rich as well as the poor, should be given free in order to give people who have any ground for suspecting that they may be in the early stage of this disease an inducement to obtain diagnosis free at the early stage.

Mr. Hunter: I am quite satisfied with the assurance given, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hunter: The other Amendment in my name—to leave out paragraph (d)—is now not necessary.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, citation and extent.)

Amendments made:

In page 10, line 12, leave out "Act, 1936," and insert "Acts, 1936 and 1937."

In line 12, leave out "and," and insert "to."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to authorise the Treasury to repay to the Bank of England sums advanced by that Bank to the National Bank of Czecho-slovakia together with interest thereon and to enable effect to be given to two agreements copies whereof were laid before this House on the thirty-first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, namely:—

(a) an agreement (in this Resolution referred to as 'the first agreement') made between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic; and
(b) an agreement (in this Resolution referred to as 'the second agreement') made between His Majesty's said Government, the Government of the French Republic and the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic;

it is expedient to authorise—

(i) the repayment to the Bank of England out of the Consolidated Fund of sums amounting to ten million pounds advanced by that Bank to the National Bank of Czecho-Slovakia together with interest thereon at the rate of 1 per cent., per annum;


(ii) the raising of money and the creation and issue of securities in connection with the repayment aforesaid, so that any such securities shall be deemed for all purposes to have been created and issued under Sub-section (1) of Section I of the War Loan Act, 1919;
(iii) the release of the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic from any liability under Article 1 of the first agreement in respect of the sum of four million pounds;
(iv) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by the Treasury for fulfilling a guarantee given by them in pursuance of the second agreement in respect of a loan to be raised by the Government of the Czecho-Slovak Republic, and the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by way of repayment of any sums so issued;
(v) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received in pursuance of Article 3 of the first agreement, and the application of any sums so paid into the Exchequer in redeeming or paying off debt."

CZECHO-SLOVAKIA (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel CLIFTON BROWN in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Refund of sums advanced by Bank of England.)

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I have an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 1—the first, not the second Amendment on the Paper. May I ask whether you will give me leave under the Standing Order to explain the reasons for my putting down the Amendment—in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Provided that the request of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Bank of England to advance the said sums without Parliamentary authority shall not be regarded as a precedent.

The Deputy-Chairman: There can be no question about that; consequently the right hon. Gentleman cannot give his reasons.

Mr. Benn: May I refer to Standing Order 28? It states that Mr. Speaker or in Committee the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman
may, if he thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an Amendment.
to give an explanation of it. In view of that Standing Order may I be allowed to refer to the Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have passed over the Amendment, and therefore that means that I did not think fit.

Mr. Benn: But does that mean that the privilege which a Member has under the Standing Order to make a statement is not to be allowed because, if you would permit it, I should like to give one or two reasons why I put the Amendment on the Paper. Then of course, if you decide that it cannot be called, there is an end of the matter, because this is within your power under Standing Order 28. The reason I put the Amendment down was this, that we have for the second time in a year followed the practice of contracting loans without Parliamentary authority, and I put down the Amendment in order to make sure—

The Deputy-Chairman: If I had had any doubt I would have called upon the right hon. Gentleman to make an explanation in the first place.

Mr. Benn: On that point of Order, is the Ruling this, that the Standing Order which was introduced to prevent obstruction and to give the Chair the power to select among many Amendments the best, is to be used to prevent an Amendment being put—a power which aims at preserving what is the fundamental principle of our Debates.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think the Chair is never called upon to discuss the non-selection of an Amendment.

Mr. Benn: But it has been the usual practice of the Chair to permit an hon. Member under the Standing Order to make a statement.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say I quite agree with that, and in any case had I thought fit I would have called on the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not.

CLAUSE 2.—(Provisions for giving effect to scheduled agreements.)

Mr. Benn: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after "Act," to insert:
and subject to being satisfied that full opportunity is being afforded for the exercise of the right of option set out in Section seven of the Munich Agreement.
This is a very unpleasant topic, and I apologise for keeping the Committee for a


moment or two upon it. It is a topic which I think must be regarded by all Members of the House with a feeling of great regret, if not shame. The purpose of this Amendment is to protect the right of those persons who are left in ceded territory to opt for Czech nationality. Perhaps I may remind the House what are the circumstances. On 19th September our Minister and the French Minister at Prague approached President Benes late at night and urged him to do certain things. What he was asked to do was to surrender about one-third of his country, to sacrifice among other things his own career and the career of his colleagues, and to change entirely the character of his Government, and indeed of the State. When we urged that course on President Benes we gave him certain specific promises, and it is for the fulfilment of those promises that I am begging to-day. It is not a question of any alliance with Czecho-Slovakia. It has often been said that we had no obligations as allies. That is perfectly true, but we were parties to this pressure which was brought to bear on President Benes on 19th September, and he acceded to that pressure on certain specific undertakings which we gave to him. One of them was that we should guarantee the frontiers of the State. That has just been buried; it is never likely to be done. Another pledge was to secure to those in the ceded territory the right, if they wished, to go to the territory of the State to which they had previously belonged. I will just read the relevant passage from the proposals which were presented to President Benes on 19th September. Paragraph 4 states:
The international body referred to might also be charged with questions of possible exchange of populations on the basis of the right to opt within some specified time-limit.
When the Prime Minister went to Munich that pledge was embodied in the Munich Agreement, and Clause 7 of the Munich Agreement says:
There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territory, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this agreement.
The matter is, therefore, one of great urgency, because six months from the date of the Agreement is 29th March, and we are already in the middle of February. The question I wish to ask of the repre-

sentatives of the Government is this: What have you done to redeem the pledge you gave in order to induce the Czechs to surrender a third of their territory? The need is very great. It is not just a question of living in Germany or in Czecho-Slovakia. It is a question of living in a free State or in a State where there is no personal freedom. Anyone who went into the Sudetenland eight months ago would have found that the Sudeten Germans in that country could buy their newspapers—they could buy the "Voelkische Beobachter" or even the "Stuermer"—they could listen to the radio, could meet in their own way, they could even march about in formation—I have seen them doing so. And the same liberty was enjoyed by the Socialists. Therefore, a free country existed for both parties.
Under the Munich Agreement that territory has been ceded, and as we promised to the 300,000 people who were German Socialist voters in the last election held in Czecho-Slovakia that if they wished to preserve their personal freedom they would not be damnified by the Munich Agreement, we ask the Government how many of them have opted, and whether the right of option exists in any form. That is a matter which touches the honour of every Member of this House. We asked for great sacrifices from Czecho-Slovakia, we asked these people to give up much. They have done it, and, as parties to the Munich Agreement, as those who applauded the Prime Minister's success at Munich, we are bound in honour to do something for these people left behind and to give them a chance to emigrate under the terms of our own Agreement. What is the condition in which they find themselves? No sooner had the German Government troops occupied their territory in five steps or zones than they were followed by members of the Secret Police, who began to hunt out these people whom we promised to protect, to put them into concentration camps, and to punish them in other ways. They have no liberty to-day. The "Times" has reported several cases of concentration camps being established. The Prague correspondent of the "Times" has said that this right of option has been forgotten. I will read a passage from a leading article in the "Times":


The emigration of the German Social Democrats is necessary if they are to preserve any vestige of independence or personal liberty.
That is a summary of the leading article in the "Times." People may say, why should we be troubled about the liberties of people in other countries of whom we know nothing, as the Prime Minister said on one occasion. We are under a pledge to these people. It was our doing and on our promise that they should have the right of opting when we made the agreement. The Prime Minister's name is set to this agreement, and when we asked the number of these optants we could not be told how many there were or whether any optants had taken place at all. The only thing I could do was to put an Amendment on the Paper asking that the Treasury should be satisfied that the right of option is being exercised. I believe that this will appeal to Members in all parts of the Committee. It is not a matter of whether you are for or against the Munich Agreement or the mutilation of Czecho-slovakia, but whether you are going to keep your pledged word to these people that they should escape into a free State and not live in a state of slavery.

7.16 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I would like to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) has said. Members in all parts of the Committee who have any connection with Czecho-Slovakia at all are receiving most heartbreaking letters from people as to what is going on, and most passionate pleas that they should be helped either out of the Sudetenland or out of the grip of the Nazis in any possible way whatever. I happen, like my right hon. Friend, to have associations with Czecho-Slovakia through the Socialist Internationale and through my personal contact with that country. Hon. Members opposite may shrug a shoulder and say, "These are only Socialists." They are human beings. It is a question of human liberty, and the people to whom it applies are in a circle which is growing ever smaller and smaller. The concentration camps are becoming less and less the respecters of fine shades of political opinion. They only ask whether one is 100 per cent. Nazi and a champion of the Nazi creed.
I feel that the Prime Minister, when he comes successively to apologise for his

foreign policy and tries to explain it away, manages each time to explain that it is not really so bad as we on this side of the Committee seem to think, because he has given all sorts of pledges. There were the pledges with regard to the British plan in Spain and with regard to Austria, and, as we all remember, his pledges at Munich, when he made a great point about the pledges that were given with regard to these optants and those who would be protected who were already in Czecho-Slovakia. When we complained bitterly, we were told, "You forget. This has been done and it is rather delightful to think that there are all these safety clauses and that people are going to be protected." There were the saving Clauses about the optants, the guarantees of the frontier and the loan. The only one of these clauses that is to be carried out apparently is the loan. That loan is to be carried out because nobody wants it more than the Nazi controllers of Czecho-slovakia to-day. The one thing that the Nazi controllers of Czecho-Slovakia do not want is the optant clause.
Therefore, the Government have persuaded this House that Munich was perhaps not so bad because of this saving Clause. They have somehow mislaid or forgotten it, exactly as they have mislaid the British plan when they are offering General Franco recognition to-day. It is getting rather serious. We on this side of the Committee have long since given up even pretending to believe the word of the Prime Minister. That is something to which we cannot be expected any longer even to pay lip-service. But we forget that there is such a thing on the Continent of Europe as the word of Britain, and the Prime Minister is regarded as being the man, who, when he gives a pledge, pledges the word of Britain. I have two friends, who, from different points of view, are journalists in Prague, and they made the very most of the pledges of the Prime Minister because the situation was so bad after Munich that they simply had to go round trying to find what kind of silver linings could be seen in the clouds that were gathering. In order to comfort their people they made the very most of these pledges, of the optants, frontier and loan clauses. I received a letter this morning asking what is being done with regard to the optant clause.
I have no doubt whatever that the right hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary


of State is the champion stone-waller of the Front Bench opposite, and he manages to express his promises in such a way that no one can doubt him. He has done the Prime Minister a great deal of personal service in covering him with all sorts of praise. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied with the policy he has been pursuing. I have no doubt that when he comes to speak we shall have another of these charmingly phrased and polite statements to say that really all this is being done and it is quite unnecessary to put it in the Bill. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman we have no particular reason to believe that kind of thing, because we have been stalled off with that sort of statement ever since the disastrous control of the foreign policy of this country by the Prime Minister started.
There is only one sort of guarantee, and that is that the guarantee to the optants in Czecho-Slovakia shall be linked up to the one thing that the Nazis want and that is the control of British money. If we say, "You shall not have the British money unless you carry out the pledge the Prime Minister gave to the optants in Czecho-Slovakia," there will be some chance of it being done, but there is no chance whatever that these people will get what they were promised unless there is some sanction or something of which we can get hold. What is it that we ask? These people, whether they are Socialists, Communists, Liberals or just old-fashioned Conservatives in the Sudeten land were, after all, the people who were supporting the elected and legitimate Government of the country. It is the fashion on Conservative benches just now, when we talk about the elected and legitimate Government of a country to sneer, and to think that so long as it is one of their own class who is the rebel, he is a much more important person than the elected Government of the country. We have seen that in Spain.
The fact remains that these people in Sudetenland, who are to-day potential victims of the Nazis, and who were trying their best to prevent the secession of Sudetenland to Germany, were the patriots of their time and their country. There was a time when the Conservatives of this country claimed to admire the patriots of another country. Their sole claim was that, while that land was governed by the legitimately elected Gov-

ernment of the country they stood by that country against the foreign invader. Therefore, surely, seeing that our Prime Minister has pledged the word of Britain that they shall have the right to opt for Czecho-Slovakian nationality it is up to us to see that, in so far as that pledge can be carried out, it shall be carried out. I urge that this House shall not accept, because we have no reason to accept, these oft-repeated but completely vague phrases from the opposite Front Bench, but that we shall have some guarantee, and the only kind of guarantee, I submit, is that this Amendment shall be accepted by the Government and shall be put into the Bill.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: I agree with much of what the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) has said, though I cannot agree with her conclusions. It should be realised by the Government that this optants Clause is an actual Clause in the Munich Agreement. It strikes me as important to put that fact on record. It was not intended to be a vague expression of hope. It was an actual Clause in the Agreement signed between more than two countries. It is true that a great many of the details of that Agreement were left over to be decided by a International Commission—perhaps more than details. Perhaps it is arguable, in the letter of that Clause, that it was not intended to apply to those of German nationality who lived in the Sudeten country. I do not know whether that is arguable or not, but the most appalling things have been happening. To give one example—a German citizen and his wife who had escaped back to Prague were taken over in an aeroplane. Their passage money was paid by a Member of this House. The aeroplane was blown out of its way and it landed at Hamburg. When it came down the passengers were confiscated and they have never been heard of again. Where are they? Are they at liberty?
I do not agree with the hon. Lady in her conclusions because it strikes me that it is a debt of honour and that the condition of Czecho-Slovakia is going to be happier if this £10,000,000 is paid, but I would like it to be completely and absolutely put on record that this was a clause in the Munich Agreement, and that once again the German Government in their


treatment of the optants have wholly let down the civilisation of the world.

7.29 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I am sure that everybody on both sides of the House will appreciate the feelings and sentiments of those who sympathise with persons who are in any way afflicted by reason of their opinions or their situation in any particular part of Europe, no less than in the district to which reference has been made in the speeches which have already been delivered. What I have to consider is whether the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be of value to certain people, and whether in fact the Government can agree that these words should be inserted in the Clause of the Bill to which he has made reference. I shall examine that point as closely as I can, but I may say, first of all, that it would be very wrong if this Committee or people outside the House got the idea that matters contained in the Munich Agreement, which may be regarded as undertakings, are not being implemented. General phrases have been used about our not having implemented certain promises which we have made. The hon. Lady said that the only promise we had carried out was that about the loan. Let me assure her and the Committee that we have in fact carried out what we said on the question of the optants agreement. As the Prime Minister and I have stated, the question of the guarantee of the frontiers has been considered and is being considered with other Governments. Therefore, the sweeping generalities that prefaced the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady cannot be substantiated in any way.
Let us come to the question of the optants. The Munich Agreement runs as follows:
There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months of the date of this Agreement. A German Czecho-Slovak Commission shall determine the details of the option, consider ways of facilitating the transfer of population and settle questions of principle arising out of the said transfer.
How did the question proceed? This provision of the Munich Agreement was duly implemented by the conclusion on the 20th November last year of the German-Czecho-Slovak Treaty regarding nationality and option questions. Our

concern was to see that the terms of the Munich Agreement, paragraph 7, were carried out, and that Germany and Czecho-Slovakia should reach an agreement which would enable the undertaking contained in that Article to be fulfilled. In our opinion that has been done by the Agreement which was come to by the two Governments concerned on 20th November. I think the terms of that particular Treaty have been before Members of the Committee, but, if not, I am ready to give them. The position is that our undertaking has been implemented by the fact that the Agreement specified in Article 7 was concluded between the two Governments concerned, and that there is now a right of option which can be exercised by persons on both sides of the frontier.

Mr. Crossley: Can it be exercised by those citizens of the old Czecho-Slovakia who happen to be Germans or Bohemians, or does it only apply to people of Czech birth?

Mr. Butler: I have the terms of the Agreement. It applies to Czechs, Slovaks or people of Jewish race, but not to persons of German race.

Mr. Benn: Let us be clear on this point. Clause 7 is an undertaking as between ourselves and the German Chancellor. That Clause establishes the right of option for all parties. The German-Czecho-Slovak Commission, as I understand it, was not charged with carrying out Clause 7, but merely with the details. The obligations of Clause 7 were undertaken by Germany and ourselves.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend us to interpret the Clause which he has read as making some distinction between race and nationality?

Mr. Butler: Yes. I am informed that the Agreement does not apply to people of German race.

Miss Wilkinson: The question at issue is the pledge of the Prime Minister, which was quite definite, that those who desired to leave Sudeten territory because they were in danger of the Nazis, should be entitled to do so. Those who are in most danger from the Nazis are the German Socialists and Communists in Sudetenland, who according to the Germans, have been traitors to their country. The


Prime Minister's pledge did not specify that they were only to be Czechs, Slovaks and Jews who were to have the right to leave.

Mr. Butler: The words of the Munich Agreement were read out by the right hon. Gentleman, and they have the signature of the German Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the two other heads of Governments. I have read to the Committee the provision that the German and Czecho-Slovak Governments were to get together and come to an agreeement on the question of those who might opt. They have come to that agreement, and I have given the Committee the information in my possession.

Mr. Benn: This is a matter on which many people are very sensitive. Where does the right hon. Gentleman find in the Munich Agreement that the German-Czecho-Slovak Commission were to come to an agreement and decide who was to have the right to opt? That is dealt with in the preceding sentence. It was to be for the International Commission to decide.

Mr. Butler: The German-Czecho-Slovak Commission was to determine the details of the option, which it has done.

Miss Wilkinson: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman does not suggest that it is a detail whether thousands of people are being persecuted by the Nazis? That is not a detail. The pledge was given for the people and not as to details how it should be done.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Lady must realise that the whole object of the Bill is to help precisely the type of people for whom she is most concerned, that is, the refugees who in most cases escaped from Sudetenland and settled in Czecho-slovakia, but who have been in a very bad way. The object of the Government in bringing forward the Bill is to help financially, in the manner described in the Second Reading Debate, the refugees who are in Czecho-Slovakia now. If the Committee will study the Bill in detail they will see that its object is to help refugees, many of whom are Sudeten Germans who fled. The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a new issue, namely, the question of the right to opt—the Optants Agreement. I have given all the particulars, and I can give no more. I

do not believe that the insertion of his words would help the refugees in Czecho-slovakia. If anybody does exercise the right of option, which they are at liberty to do, they would come under the provisions of the Bill provided they correspond with the definition laid down.

Mr. Benn: How many of the 300,000 people have had the right to escape?

Mr. Butler: The right of option persists until the 29th March. Until that date anybody classed as an optant under the Agreement has the right to use the facilities provided by the Agreement. There is nothing to check that. I cannot see that the words of the right hon. Gentleman would add anything to the Bill or make the position of the refugees any better. It seems to me that to wish in any way to hold up the Bill for the sake of what must be a small proportion of those who will benefit from the Bill, would be unreasonable. I am ready at any time when I have information on the operations of the Optants Agreement to put it before the House, but at the present time I have no further information. The date of the termination of the option has not arrived but, as I said at Question Time, we have no evidence to suggest that persons who, despite the possible disadvantages of such a course, wish to opt for Czech nationality are being prevented from so doing.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am afraid the Under-secretary has not succeeded in satisfying those of us who are concerned about this vital question of option. He has given us the text of the German Czecho-Slovak Agreement which, under the Munich treaty, was to determine the details of option. He would have us believe that it is a detail that the right of option should be given to Czechs, Slovaks and Jews, but denied to the hundreds and thousands of German democrats who were in Sudetenland. The language of the Munich Agreement, by which our Government is in honour bound, and on which Czecho-Slovakia surrendered, is absolutely clear. It says:
There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this Agreement.
There was no limitation of any kind whatsoever, but the Under-Secretary says: "Do not worry. There are still six weeks to go, and we have no evidence


that this right of option is not being allowed." Has he not heard of the hundreds of Sudeten Germans who are in Dachau now? Has he not seen photographs of these people being marched off by Storm Troopers and Hitler's secret police? Has he not heard of the hundreds of first-hand stories of refugees whose families say they have not heard of their fathers, their sons, their brothers since the day that Hitler first brought his police into the area? Everybody knows that the right is not being allowed, and that our Government have not yet lifted one finger to ensure that it shall be allowed. Between now and the date that this right of option expires, 29th March, will His Majesty's Government ask for reports from our Ambassador in Berlin, our Minister in Prague and our Consuls in the territory of the new Czecho-Slovakia, and get all the evidence they can of the exercise of this right of option, and on the basis of those reports will His Majesty's Government bring all the pressure they can to bear on the Government at Berlin, to ensure that these obligations of the Treaty shall be carried out?

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I should like to point out that no one wants to hold up the Bill in any shape or form. We are anxious that it should go through as quickly as possible, but we are absolutely and genuinely troubled in our minds and consciences about this question of option. I was a little disappointed with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, because it threw a little atmosphere of discredit over the whole transaction, which is a thing we wish to avoid if we possibly can do so.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), in one of her interruptions, said that I regarded this question as a detail. The word "detail" was not my language. I was reading from the Munich Agreement. I take this question as seriously as any Member of the Committee.

Mr. Boothby: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I do not want to labour the matter, because we are all anxious to help in every way. This has nothing to do with the merits of the Munich Agreement as a whole. On that matter, opinions may justifiably differ, but we all want to prevent more

human suffering than is necessary, I must confess that I am worried still about the position of the German Social Democrats in Sudeten Germany who have not been lucky enough to escape in time. My right hon. Friend pointed out that a large part of the money would be and could be used to help particular people, those Sudeten Germans who have managed to escape from Sudeten Germany. That is a very good thing. What I am troubled about is the position of those who have not been lucky enough to escape.
I believe that the Prime Minister and this House read the Munich Agreement in such a way as to assume that any citizen of Sudeten Germany who wished to opt out in the given period of six months could do so. What we are worried about, and what we ought to be worried about, if we cherish the honour of this country, is the position of those people who were not lucky enough to escape, and who are now in concentration camps. Is my right hon. Friend prepared even now to put a little pressure on Germany, and to spend the necessary money, to help those people to get out who have not been lucky enough to get out? What about the Social Democrats and the Communists who are in concentration camps? Cannot we do something to help them to get out? A little pressure at Berlin, perhaps a little more expenditure on the part of His Majesty's Government would assist in that direction. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to reconsider the situation from this angle, because I am sure that hon. Members immediately they read the Munich Agreement took the view that this optance Clause applied to every one in Sudetenland.
I quite agree with regard to the question of the frontiers guarantee. Many difficulties have arisen since Munich, but, nevertheless, most hon. Members thought that His Majesty's Government were prepared to guarantee the frontiers of Czecho-Slovakia, and all that the Under-secretary of State has been able to tell us is that it is still under consideration. We are, after all, a very great country and if we give our word in these matters I think we ought to take a little more active steps to implement it. I know that it would be difficult to give a guarantee for the frontiers single handed, but it is a guarantee, if we are to maintain our honour, which sooner or later we shall have to give, and it is a guarantee which,


I believe, the House of Commons would wish us to give. In view of the behaviour of the Czech nation and of the services they have rendered us, in view of the discipline and the fortitude they have shown under the most extraordinarily difficult circumstances, and in view of all the sacrifices they have made for the peace of the world, there is nothing we ought not to be prepared to do to assist them in their hour of trial.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have never heard a speech in this House which has been more thoroughly unrepresentative of British opinion in the world than the speech which the Under-Secretary of State has just delivered. I really wonder how the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who still claims to be a Liberal, can sit by his side after such an exposition of modern British Liberalism. There is no doubt that when the Prime Minister announced the Munich Agreement to this House everyone believed that every citizen of Czecho-slovakia who might have reason to fear persecution and ill-treatment from the coming German Government would have the right to clear out of Sudetenland and become a citizen of the new Czech State. I guarantee that no one who heard the Prime Minister's explanation of the Munich Agreement would have believed that we should have had the explanation which has been tendered to us this afternoon. What did the Under-Secretary of State say? He supported the principle of the Pool of Bethesda. One man got in first, and he was killed. A few people have got out of Sudetenland quickly—they are to be congratulated. The remainder of the people of German race who inhabited Sudetenland are to be left there to all the consequences which the holding of anything approaching liberal opinion must entail in that country.
The honour of this country is very deeply pledged to those people who are left behind. If they had the chance of knowing what was said in this House I am sure they would interpret the Prime Minister's explanation of the Munich Agreement in exactly the same way as we do. They would have believed that they would get a chance of getting away from those people who would become their persecutors. Throughout the Press of the world it has been recognised that it was the willingness of the population of old Czecho-Slovakia to accept the terms of

the Munich Agreement which saved this country from being involved in war, and very great tributes have been paid in this House to those people for doing that. No one in this House has been slow to recognise the sacrifices which Czecho-Slovakia was called upon to make, but we did believe that we had managed to save them—and I am sure the Czechs of German race believed it themselves—from the persecution which the establishment of Nazi rule over their country was bound to involve.
Now we find that this Agreement is being interpreted not on the basis of nationality but on the basis of the modern Nazi theory of race, and, to my mind, it is very regrettable that anything should be said in this House which appears to defend that principle. A right hon. Member of the party opposite has been getting into trouble with his constituents because his wife has been elaborating the race theory. I hope this House is not going to accept as a reasonable interpretation of an agreement which was entered into on the basis of nationality an interpretation which is based on race. If my right hon. Friend goes to a Division on this question I shall feel it my duty to support him. I think the Committee ought to mark its sense of disappointment at the way in which the regrettable Munich Agreement, becoming all the more regrettable day by day, is being applied to the lives of the people who are the real and primary sufferers under it.

7.54 p.m.

Sir P. Harris: I want to make an appeal to the Under-Secretary, that the general feeling of the House requires a more generous reply from the Government than we have had. One ought not to be too hard on the Under-Secretary of State.

Miss Wilkinson: Why not?

Sir P. Harris: He is only an Under-secretary; he is not in the Cabinet, and we have the advantage of the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer whose Bill it is. After all, the Bill is full of good things, and we do not want it to be marred by the suggestion that it does not go far enough. It is a mistake to think that this is a matter which applies only to Social Democrats. I have had a most pathetic letter signed by a number of Liberals who were not in a hurry to clear out, but who now find it impossible to


get back into the new Czech State or to get out of their new citizenship. It is a serious thing to think that in less than six weeks time, on 29th March, the words "Too late" will come into operation. But our responsibility will not cease on 29th March. Certainly it would be against the whole spirit of the House of Commons and the Prime Minister's statement if some consideration is not given to those citizens of German race whose political opinions and ideas are not acceptable to the Government of the Reich. It is only too true, from the information I have received, that already some of them have come under the iron heel of the totalitarian regime because of their political opinions. We demand that the Government should send out some message of hope to those who are the victims of this attempt to establish peace in Europe.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Sandys: I cannot support the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman although I am glad that it has given the Committee an opportunity of expressing its feelings on a subject which has caused considerable anxiety to many of us. If it were passed it would not really help the purpose of the Bill, and I do not imagine that the right hon. Gentleman really intends to press it to a Division. All those who have any knowledge of what is happening in the Sudeten areas are profoundly disturbed. I heard the other day of a relation of a friend of mine, a Sudeten German, who thought he would have an opportunity to opt out of the Sudeten area into Czecho-Slovakia. He was put into a concentration camp and has since been released with both his legs broken. That is not by any means an isolated case from what I hear. When the Munich Agreement was signed I am sure, at any rate, that the British and French signatories imagined that the treaty was going to cover all the inhabitants of the Sudeten territory as well as all the inhabitants of the Czech area. Since the Munich Agreement, a treaty has been signed between Germany and Czecho-Slovakia, in which undoubtedly Czecho-Slovakia was not a free agent. I recognise that His Majesty's Government cannot interfere with an agreement which has been signed between two sovereign nations, but I think it would help if a spokesman on behalf of the Government would tell us quite frankly the truth,

namely, that the Prime Minister did imagine when he signed the agreement that it was going to cover the Sudeten Germans as well as persons of the Czech race in the ceded areas?
Listening to the Debate on the Munich Agreement it seemed to me perfectly clear that that was the Prime Minister's impression and that was the interpretation of the Agreement which he gave to the House. If he had not been under that impression he would have seen to it that some Clause was inserted in the Treaty to that effect. I agree with hon. Members that that was the impression he gave to the House and I think it would be in the interests of the Government's reputation if they would tell us quite frankly that they are disappointed at what has happened, and this is not what they intended, although the responsibility does not rest with them. It seems to me that we cannot merely leave this matter by saying, "We are sorry this has happened." We bear some measure of responsibility, to say the least of it, for what has happened to these people who have been handed over to Nazi rule. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether he cannot hold out some hope to the Sudeten Germans who for one reason or another are not safe under German rule, that they will be included under the negotiations with Germany which are taking place on the refugee problem in general. I do not see why they should not be treated together with the Jews and other refugees, and given consideration under that heading. I will say no more, except to ask my right hon. Friend first if he will make it clear—which I think is the case—that the Government never foresaw this abuse of the Munich Agreement, and, secondly, whether he cannot see his way to deal with this pressing problem within the scope of the refugee negotiations, which are now proceeding.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I share the surprise which other hon. Members have expressed this evening. I listened to the Chancellor introducing the Bill last week, and rightly or wrongly, I took the view that the Sudeten Germans were equally covered in regard to the assistance that was being given. That is a view which has been expressed by several hon. Members tonight. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the matter clear one way


or the other before the Debate concludes. It may be that it is too late for him to meet our request, but I hope it is not, because anxiety has been expressed in all parts of the Committee by hon. Members who realise that fidelity to conviction is the mainstay of human progress. The future of humanity depends upon men and women standing by their convictions. The Committee are anxious that no one shall be kept out of the scheme because of his race or convictions. I hope it is not too late for the Government to make further representations that the Sudeten Germans shall not be excluded from the scheme for reasons of race, religion or political convictions. If there is any doubt upon that issue, I hope that this evening the Committee will be informed of it, so that we shall not allow the Measure to pass the Committee stage without knowing exactly whether these people are covered or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer is present, and I hope that he will do his best to allay the feeling of anxiety which has overtaken the Committee.

8.3 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): The speech of the hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) makes it right that I should say a word or two. The hon. Member referred to the explanation of the Bill which I gave to the House on Second Reading. That explanation, I think, was accurate, it was candid; and I went through the documents, as far as I was able to do so, in order that hon. Members might follow the explanation. I certainly do not treat this particular matter lightly. What I would point out, and what hon. Members must remember at this time, is that the Bill is one providing financial help to be put in the hands of the present Czechoslovak Government—it is true with some assistance from our own representative—and is necessarily addressed to helping people who want to leave Czecho-slovakia and settle elsewhere, or who want to settle in Czecho-Slovakia and can do so only with further financial assistance.
I do not for one moment rule out the importance of considering those people—those very unhappy people, I should gather, from what has been said—who may not have reached Czecho-Slovakia; but as a matter of fairness, I must point

out that the Bill provides for help to be given to the Czecho-Slovak Government for the purpose of dealing with people who are in Czecho-Slovakia or who get there, and who either must get away from Czecho-Slovakia and start a new life somewhere else, or, probably in a larger number of cases, must settle there, but need help to do so. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is why the Schedule says what it does, and why I think all hon. Members are very unwilling to hold up the provision of this money for the assistance of the refugees.
It is another question, which really does not come under the Bill directly, that we have been discussing this evening. I do not make the least complaint about that, for I think the right hon. Gentleman was well within his rights, and certainly in order, in raising it; and other hon. Members have taken very proper advantage of the opportunity of speaking on the matter. The matter raised in the Amendment is this—Are the arrangements satisfactory for allowing people who have not moved out of Sudetenland to get out? If they are satisfactory, are they being properly complied with? I believe that at Question Time to-day the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that so great an interest do we take in that matter that we have sent instructions to our own representatives to find out what are the facts. I hope that nothing I have said, and nothing that the Under-Secretary has said, can be treated in the least by any fair-minded person as implying that this is a matter on which there is feeling on one side only.
At the same time, the object of the Bill is to provide finance, at British expense I agree, for the Czecho-Slovak Government in order that they may be able to get rid of those who cannot stay there and help those who want to settle there. Drafted in that way, I do not think the Committee will consider that it would be reasonable to insert this Amendment which would necessarily be a clogging provision in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) took a similar view, and said that he did not think he could vote for the insertion of such an Amendment; and indeed, I feel that will be the opinion of hon. Members opposite. We have had a Debate, and I am far from saying that


it has not been valuable. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has taken just as serious a view of this matter as any hon. Member in any part of the Committee, and I am sure that he has taken due note of what has been said and will consider what more can be done. Having made these remarks, I think the Committee will agree that we cannot insert this Amendment, which would clog the general operation of the Bill.

Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to consider whether these unfortunate people can be helped in some way or another?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Baronet may be perfectly satisfied that the whole of this matter is very much in our minds. There are a number of things to be considered, but there is no unwillingness on our part to make the best effort we can and no unwillingness to recognise that there are very sad and grave cases.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I do not propose to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, because as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it would clog the operation of the Bill. I am satisfied that the Debate has taken place, for it has shown that in every part of the Committee there is a feeling of deep shame at what has occurred. Tens of thousands of people who trusted our word are now living in conditions of slavery. Some of them laid down their arms at our behest and now they are under the Nazi heel, and we cannot do anything about it, although we were a party to the Munich Agreement with the German Chancellor. It is under that Agreement that they were enslaved. The speeches that have been made this evening have shown that hon. Members on every side of the Committee are heartily ashamed of what is taking place, and that is the most that can be done about it. Having said this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, on the grounds I have stated.

Miss Wilkinson: Is it possible, Sir Dennis, to speak against the withdrawal of an Amendment?

The Chairman (Sir Dennis Herbert): If the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member wishes to speak, they may do so, but in that case the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

8.11 p.m.

Miss Wilkinson: I only wish to enter a protest. It is not a protest against the action of my own Front Bench, for I am sure that they are acting in the best interests of everybody concerned. I feel it is time a protest was made that all the time, with regard to these unfortunate people in Austria, Czecho-Slovakia and Spain, we have smooth words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, we have one promise after another to get things through, and then when it comes to trying to implement those things for the poor, unfortunate people, there are more smooth words, but you sell them to Hitler every time.

8.12 p.m.

Sir John Haslam: May I endeavour to raise this discussion to a higher level? It has been said that hon. Members in all parts of the Committee have supported, not the Amendment, but the idea that every section of the Sudeten Germans should be allowed to leave if they so desire. I want to say, as a one hundred per cent. supporter of the Munich Agreement and the Prime Minister—and that cannot be said of all the hon. Members who have spoken—that I am amazed to find that certain people are not allowed to leave Sudeten Germany under the Agreement. Certainly, in my innocence perhaps, I took it for granted that people with certain political views would be able to get out of Sudeten Germany away from the new regime there. If that is not so, I hope that pressure will be brought to bear and representations made to the right authorities, to Herr Hitler and the new Government in Czecho-Slovakia; and that it will be pointed out to them that that was the interpretation which the ordinary citizen of this country placed upon the new arrangement when they heard of it. I realise that it would be wrong to do anything which would delay the granting of this money, but this may be the only opportunity. Time is running short, and there are now only six weeks in which representations can be made. I hope that those representations will be made in the right quarters.
I rose simply to express the view, as I believe, of an ordinary supporter of the Government who does not want to make party capital out of this, and who does not on every occasion pinprick the Government; but on this occasion I believe that the Government


have been as badly treated as anybody in regard to this Agreement, if it has been interpreted in the way in which we have heard this evening. Therefore, I hope that representations will be made and that success will attend them. If we fail, at least we shall feel that Englishmen have done their best in the circumstances and that we have been—I will not say tricked in regard to this Agreement, but that we have not had a square deal in the matter, and that we have not had all that we should have liked. I hope, however, that something will be done for these unfortunate people in Sudeten Germany.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: If the speech which we have just heard represents 100 per cent., support of the Government, I wonder what percentage would be necessary in order to represent real support of the Government, because I can imagine few speeches which could give more cause for misgiving to a Government than that of the hon. Member for Bolton (Sir J. Haslam). I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not respond to the invitation tendered to him by another hon. Member opposite who is, I understand, a 100,000 per cent., supporter of something or other. I refer to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys). He invited the Chancellor to say whether the original opinion of the Government with regard to this Agreement, was not the same as that which has been expressed by every back bench Member and stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn). When did the Government discover that this interpretation was being placed on the Munich Agreement? I want to read what the Prime Minister said on 3rd October:
Under the Munich Agreement the conditions of evacuation are to be laid down in detail by the International Commission. Again, the Munich arrangement includes certain very valuable provisions which found no place at all in the Godesberg Memorandum, such as the Article regarding the right of option: that is option to leave the territory and pass into Czech territory, provisions for facilitating the transfer of populations.
No mention there of it being limited to persons of a certain race. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) was speaking on the same day the Prime Minister made an interruption. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and

Leamington had suggested that 10th October was the last day on which certain people to whom he had been alluding in this connection could get out, and the Prime Minister, interrupting him, said:
I think that, if I understood my right hon. Friend correctly, he has not fully understood. There is no insistence that persons who wish to opt out of the territory must get out by 10th October. [Interruption.] Surely, my right hon. Friend and I may be allowed to understand one another. I understood my right hon. Friend to be under the impression that everyone who wanted to get out had to get out by 10th October. That is not the position. The position is that the Czech forces—the soldiers and police—have to be out by the 10th, but the inhabitants' power to opt remains beyond the 10th."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd October, 1938; cols. 44 and 83, Vol. 339.]
There, again, we get the word "inhabitants" and not people of Czech, or Slovak or Jewish race. I think the Committee is entitled to more information from the Government. After all, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was one of the four Members of the Government who were largely responsible for settling policy throughout this period. Did the right hon. Gentleman himself understand when the Munich Agreement was first reported to them that this right of option was limited by considerations of race and not by the consideration of the wishes of the inhabitants? We are entitled to know whether the Government kept back from the House an interpretation of which they knew or whether this interpretation is as great a shock to them as to the other Members of the Committee.

Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman: I am afraid that is impossible now.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DEMONSTRATIONS, WESTMINSTER.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Dugdale.]

8.22 p.m

Mr. Silverman: On Thursday last a number of hon. Members, of whom I was one, addressed questions to the Home Secretary referring to complaints against the conduct of the police on the evening of 31st January in Parliament Square, Whitehall and the neighbourhood of Piccadilly Circus. We found the Home Secretary's answer completely unsatisfactory, and I gave notice that I would taken an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment. Before dealing with the particular points which I wish to make, I would say, first, that it is a little unusual for a Member who does not represent a London constituency to raise questions, particularly in Debate, on matters which, on one view, might be considered local London matters. I think, however, that the question of the conduct of the police in the Metropolis is a very important national question, and for that reason it has always been recognised that the proper authority to whom the London police should be answerable is the Home Secretary, and that he should answer for them in this House. I, therefore, make no apology for intervening about a matter which has not arisen in my own constituency.
Secondly, there are people who think that there is something almost improper in questioning the actions of policemen and that, when one asks questions about the conduct of policemen and implies that they have done something which they ought not to have done, one is taking part in some kind of conspiracy against law and order, and ought to be apologetic about making such complaints. I do not feel at all apologetic about making my complaint. I think these matters are so important that criticism of them, where criticism is legitimate, ought to be made without fear and without apology, and I am not of that other class of persons who think that the police are fair game for any kind of criticism and that credence should be lightly given to any kind of charge that any kind of person seeks to bring against them. The Home Secretary made a reply of which I can only say that either the charges and the information upon which those charges are made

are fantastic inventions or the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman is itself fantastic. I do not know which of these positions is the correct one, and I do not think anyone can know, unless and until the Home Secretary appoints some impartial authority to investigate the charges and to confront the witnesses on both sides with one another, to enable the witnesses on both sides to be subjected to cross-examination, so as to enable that authority, whoever he may be, to reach a considered and impartial judgment upon the evidence tendered by either side.
I think it was said by the Home Secretary, in answer to a supplementary question, that he ought to have the names and addresses of the witnesses and that their statements ought to be submitted to him before he considered whether an inquiry was justified. There are many occasions, no doubt, on which that course would be the proper one to follow, but I suggest that that is not true in the present instance. I do not think it would be advisable at this stage to allow the names and addresses of these witnesses and their statements to be investigated, presumably, by the very people against whom the complaints are made. Let us see what the Home Secretary said. Here is his answer:
On the evening of 31st January, an organised attempt was made to evade the prohibition of mass demonstrations in the neighbourhood of Parliament.
I do not know why people should not evade the prohibition if they can lawfully do it.
After a meeting had been held in Chenies Street, a procession marched to Cambridge Circus. The demonstrators then made their way in separate groups to Parliament Square"—
Why should they not?—
and, in accordance with a plan outlined by a speaker at the meeting, a number of them attempted to justify their presence"—
Why should citizens of this country have to justify their presence in Parliament Square to anybody?—
by a pretence that they happened simultaneously to wish to take advantage of the facilities ordinarily available to individual members of the public for interviewing Members of Parliament.
Who said that they only pretended to want to interview their Members of Parliament? Or is it being said that the pretence was that they simultaneously wanted to do it?


Other demonstrators paraded in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament chanting slogans. It was the duty of the police, both under the Sessional Order and the general law, to disperse this crowd of demonstrators. The inquiries which I have made as to the steps taken by the police for this purpose indicate that they carried out their duty in a reasonable manner and with commendable restraint and patience. Later a number of demonstrators collected in Piccadilly Circus and a number of men and women tried to obstruct the traffic by lying down in the roadway. As a result 51 persons were arrested.
My information is that at no time were truncheons drawn or used, and I can find no ground for the suggestion that there was any unnecessary violence. If specific complaints are sent to me, I wild, of course, investigate them, but on the information I have at present, I can find no ground whatsoever for the suggestion that there is a case for a committee of inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1939; cols. 1121–2; Vol. 343.]
May I say, without wishing to exaggerate a single detail, that there is not a single statement of fact in that statement that is not hotly disputed, except that there was a meeting somewhere outside this area, that there was a demonstration in Cambridge Circus, and that they dispersed? Except for those things, there is not a single statement of fact there that is not the subject of the most indignant dispute by people who are entitled to be believed. Let me give the statement of one woman. I will not give her name and address, though I have them. It is as follows:
I attended the meeting and then passed to Cambridge Circus. I went with four other women down to the House of Commons to see my M.P. At the side entrance of the Houses of Parliament, near the car park, at what seemed to be a given moment concerted action started on the part of mounted police, who galloped into the crowd. The foot police lost control of themselves and suddenly started using their fists against the people indiscriminately. One mounted policeman drew out his sword. A man was cornered and hit on the head. Other police forced him behind the statue of a man, and there about four policemen fell on him and started to beat him. The police were quite uncontrolled. The man had not been doing anything more than the rest of the crowd. He was just walking with us and was suddenly set upon by the police. I was struck on the back of the head by a policeman, and when I turned round to see who was hitting me another policeman got hold of me by the throat, and another policeman standing by hit me in the face. I attempted to defend myself by putting my hand up. A fourth policeman then got hold of me, turned me round and rushed me out of the crowd.… While walking along the pavement with crowds of other people a mounted policeman came on to the

pavement with his horse and scattered the people. It seems to me that his only object was to intimidate the crowd and frighten people. … A policeman cornered and held a woman up against some railings and struck her. A man came up to him and said …. The mounted policeman charged the man, and his horse kicked him on the shin, and the man dropped like a sack and sat down on some steps leading to a house. I got behind this man and said, 'Are you hurt?' He said 'I cannot move my leg'.… A policeman came and pushed me aside. I said, 'This man is hurt; he cannot lift his leg' The policeman said to the man, 'Get up and walk.' I then stood up and said,' I do not think the man can walk.' The next thing I knew was that I got a smashing blow on the side of my face. I turned round to get the policeman's number, and he gave me a second blow on the side of my head. Another policeman got hold of me by the shoulders and flung me along the pavement. I walked and stumbled on a little way, and as I was running and stumbling one policeman gave me a blow on the back of the head, sending me crashing down two steps of the pavement on to the road. I fell on my face and lost consciousness. I was told afterwards that the policeman had hit me with such force that he lost his balance and fell on top of me. I do not remember that. The blood was pouring down my face. I said I wanted the number of the policeman who hit me, and thereupon they pushed me down Victoria Street.
She attempted to get to Westminster Hospital and ultimately succeeded. I have seen that lady. I saw her two days after the event. Her head was bound up and she still showed obvious marks of violent treatment by somebody. She is not a person against whom the police have made any charge. They do not complain of her conduct. Are we to suppose that this lady dreamt about all this, that it was a kind of nightmare? I have had some professional experience of testing evidence and making up my mind whether it is likely to be true or not, and I am bound to say that if she were put on oath in a court of law and cross-examined she would probably be believed. She is certainly entitled to be believed in the absence of any answer. She was certainly hurt by somebody; she tells us by whom. Does the Home Secretary think that if that case stood by itself it would not amply justify an inquiry as to how that woman came by her injuries—on an occasion, be it understood, when apparently the police thought it was not necessary to use truncheons. I must read that into the Home Secretary's answer, which was that at no time were truncheons drawn or used. I infer from that that, in the opinion of those police officers who were


responsible, there was no need to use any truncheons. The Home Secretary will forgive me if I am a little long, but this is an important matter. As we have plenty of time there is no reason why we should not state the case as we believe it. Here is the statement of another lady, from which I will read one paragraph:
I saw a policeman take the number of a conductor who allowed a demonstrator injured by the police to board his bus. I would like to add that though the police's ostensible object was to disperse the crowd as quickly as possible, actually they drew cordons across each side turning on the way to Vauxhall Bridge so that there was no chance of escape.
That is an extremely serious charge. The charge that is made there is that the police so conducted themselves on this occasion as not to disperse the demonstrators, who were wrongly demonstrating in the wrong place or at the wrong time, as quietly and as efficiently and as non-violently as possible. What this lady is saying is that they did the exact opposite. They saw to it that the people did not disperse. They prevented escape and stopped up exits so that they could be free to drive the people in the way they wanted to drive them. I am not saying that that charge is true. I am saying that it is made by responsible people who are entitled to have their complaints heard, and that if such a charge is made by a responsible citizen we are entitled to ask, and it is to the benefit of the police themselves, that there should be a proper inquiry into it to see whether it be true or not. Here is a statement from a man:
In connection with the 'Arms for Spain' demonstration on the evening of 31st January, 1939, we were being moved on by the police down Haymarket at 11.10 p.m.
That was some time after the alleged demonstration in Parliament Square. The statement goes on to state that a police constable, whose number is given, although I do not think it right to state it at this stage, pushed a lady, whose name is given,
so hard in the back that she was flung full length on her face in the road. She was in no way hindering the police in moving us on.
The statement then gives her address and the names of witnesses. A further statement says:
I had started with the procession. On arrival at Parliament Square we were permitted to walk up and down outside the

Houses of Parliament for 20 minutes, when the police suddenly drove us with cordons of mounted and foot police along the streets towards Lambeth Bridge. I was walking along the pavement in an orderly fashion as ordered by the police, when a mounted constable rode on to the pavement and I stepped into the gate of one of the houses opening into an area for refuge. A body of police came along and ordered me out. I stepped on to the pavement, and as I did so I turned and saw a woman being pushed by a constable on to the edge of the pavement. Another constable punched her in the face and she went down in the road. I exclaimed in horror, at which he turned and seized me from behind and pushed me into the road. I nearly fell, but saved myself and regained the pavement and sought refuge in Wood Street.
Here is the statement of another lady whose address is given:
I fell in with the rest of the crowd which was bullied and pushed all the way to the bridge. The police were extraordinarily provocative. On the bridge I again became isolated because they seemed to have singled me out after that first incident"—
that is, an incident contained in a statement which I have not read.
A police inspector, taking me by the back of the neck, shook my head so that I was quite dazed. Then he threw me violently forward and several policemen gave an extra push. I kept my balance, but a policeman in front of me pushed me backwards so that I fell, hurting my head and body. My arms are very bruised and cut. A woman pulled me up. I was half fainting and she tried to get me out of the crowd. I heard one policeman say something about an ambulance and the woman who was holding me up took me over to a seat that is built on the bridge. The police would not let me sit down but drove us on.
That is the conduct of the police who, the Home Secretary in his answer said, "carried out their duty in a reasonable manner and with commendable restraint and patience." Here is a statement of another lady. These statements, except one, have so far been by women, all of whom were struck, but none of whom have had any charge brought against them:
Last night at 11.35 p.m., just outside the Haymarket entrance to the Underground station, I saw nine or ten police attacking one man. He had resented being pushed off the pavement and they all turned on him and punched his head and slapped his face in a most brutal manner.
Another lady gives a succinct account of what she saw, describing in four short paragraphs four incidents which she witnessed:
(1) In Parliament Square. I saw an inspector of police violently kick an un-


suspecting man with such force that he was sent falling into the roadway. Before he had time to get up he was set upon by three policemen in a brutal way.
(2) Piccadilly Circus. I saw a police constable"—
She gives the number—
deliberately strike a man as he was walking on the pavement.
(3) Piccadilly Circus, Haymarket Corner. I saw a sergeant"—
Again the number is given—
strike a man on the head as he was going into the Haymarket, and in less than five minutes strike a second man who was calling 'Arms for Spain,' with the ejaculation, 'Stop that noise and clear off.'
(4) As the demonstration was passing Leicester Square a young fellow passed down the ranks saying, 'Keep the ranks.' A constable sprang on him and struck him on the head, which was the signal for another constable to spring on him. They pulled him out of the demonstration, and I was so disgusted that I immediately spoke to a nearby inspector of police in these words: 'You should be thoroughly ashamed to allow your men to treat that fellow so brutally '.

Major Procter: Are those sworn statements?

Mr. Silverman: No, they are not.

Major Procter: Have they been using a solicitor to obtain them?

Mr. Silverman: I see no reason in the world why, if a respectable citizen comes to me with a statement, I should be compelled to put her on oath before I believe her. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is an improper way, but I do not know what authority I should have to put her on oath and take a sworn statement. If the right hon. Gentleman will grant the inquiry that we are asking for, I am certain that every one of these persons will be prepared to come forward and give evidence upon oath or in any other manner that the right hon. Gentleman may prefer.
So far I have dealt with statements made by people who themselves had some kind of connection with the demonstration. Either they had been at the meeting and then come to the House, or had not been to the meeting but had come to the House for the purpose of seeing the Members who represent them in the House upon the same subject-matter as the demonstration. I shall conclude these statements with two made by persons who had no connection of any kind with the demonstration. In both cases I have the name and address. In

both cases the witnesses are perfectly prepared to come forward to give their evidence before an inquiry. This lady says:
On Tuesday, 31st January, at about 10 p.m. I came out of the Monseigneur Cinema with my husband. We saw a number of police and asked somebody standing near what was happening. They said that they thought there was going to be a demonstration or something of that kind. We stood on the corner and waited to see what would happen. We could hear cries of 'Arms for Spain' in the distance, and presently a small group of demonstrators came by in a perfectly orderly manner. There were two mounted policemen in the road and their horses were both very young, nervous and undertrained. My husband, who knows a great deal about horses, said that they were not in a fit condition to be ridden. Suddenly, for absolutely no reason at all, those two mounted policemen rode on to the pavement and started charging among the passers-by, many of whom were not demonstrators. Panic and disorder were immediately created, and it was the police who were entirely responsible for this. The demonstrators had nothing to do with it.
The last paragraph of the statement hon. Members may think is a little cynical. Whether cynicism is justified or not is a point on which, perhaps, each of us is entitled to hold his own opinion:
I was dressed in mink coat and a fur-trimmed hat and presented an obviously well-to-do appearance, and I was particularly struck with the deferential manner in which I was treated by the police as opposed to the roughness with which they treated the ordinary young people of the crowd.
I do not know why anybody should smile at that.

Commander Bower: Nobody has smiled yet.

Mr. Silverman: I should not have made the remark if I had not noticed a smile.

Commander Bower: Will the hon. Gentleman say who smiled; because certainly nobody on these benches smiled? The only smile came from an hon. Member opposite, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan).

Mr. A. Bevan: That really is not so. I was smiling because I was looking opposite. The hon. and gallant Member has not got eyes all round his head and he cannot see his friends who are sitting on the same benches.

Commander Bower: No, but I know them sufficiently well to know that they would not smile at such a statement, and I know hon. Members opposite well enough to know that they would.

Mr. Silverman: I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member knows them so well as to believe that they would not smile although I tell him that they did smile, and I can see them.

Commander Bower: But you will not tell us who smiled.

Mr. Silverman: Well, if the hon. and gallant Member does not believe me—

Commander Bower: I do not.

Mr. Silverman: That is entirely what I should expect from the hon. and gallant Member. I wonder whether he would say that I am right in describing him as smiling now?

Commander Bower: Yes, I am smiling now.

Mr. Silverman: It seems to me that the charges I am submitting are very serious charges indeed, and if they are not true it is less funny than ever. If the impression made upon the minds of perfectly respectable people, with no police record, people against whom the police make no complaint, and who were not taking part in the demonstration, is such as I have described, then I say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is ample ground for an inquiry. Let me read the other statement—not addressed to me, but addressed to another hon. Member of the House who is not a member of my party:
Dear Sir,—I think it should be brought to the notice of the House that the police are responsible for turning an orderly democratic demonstration into a terrified mob. They behave more like Cossacks than Englishmen and make the most cowardly and unwarranted attacks upon a body of people expressing their views in a most orderly way. They charge on horseback into the very centre of the crowd, like madmen, striking out wildly in all directions at women and men alike. Are they losing their heads or simply obeying orders? I myself actually defended the police and rather tended to sympathise with them until yesterday, during the 'Arms for Spain' demonstration, I witnessed such brutal and uncalled-for attacks that I felt quite sick. I do not mind their complete ignorance and lack of courtesy, but such cowardly assaults on an unarmed crowd of people is, I consider, criminal and should be stopped before something very serious happens.—Yours faithfully.
I conclude by saying by what I began by saying. I am not asking the House, and I am not asking the right hon. Gentleman, to regard these charges as proved. I am not asking him to assume that any single one of the statements made is true,

but I am asking that he shall not assume that they are false. I ask that he shall accept them for the moment as statements made by three different witnesses concerning things which they say they observed. I am asking him also whether, on those statements, it is not his duty in fairness to the people against whom these charges are brought that there should be a proper inquiry into them in order that people should be asked to come forward and give their evidence and be cross-examined upon it; and that he should then consider the answers given, make up his mind about them and report to this House what in fact took place on that occasion.
I would conclude by making two general remarks, quite shortly. One is that the right hon. Gentleman has devoted a great deal of time, courage and energy in seeking to put upon the Statute Book a new Criminal Justice Bill. If he succeeds, as no doubt he will, he will have done something which will do honour to his tenure of the office, but I ask him, What sort of chance would the best penal code in the world have if it were set in motion in the first place by officers of the law upon whom you could not rely? I am not saying that the officers in question are officers upon whom you cannot rely, but I am saying that if the charges which were made are true the right hon. Gentleman's very first line in penal reform becomes suspect. When the right hon. Gentleman is considering improving the penal code he should consider whether, when charges like this are made, he ought not to have them fully investigated.
The other general remark is that some of the people concerned were demonstrating in a cause in which they believed. The slogan that some of them shouted related to arms for Spain. I would remind the House that they are not alone in that belief. The opinion that the Government's treatment of Spain has been a betrayal of most of the things in our traditions that people in this country honour is not held only by a handful of demagogues but, I suppose, by millions of our people. I hope that those people are not to be prevented by police action from demonstrating their opinions, because if once you start upon that road you start upon a very dangerous road indeed. It is clear from these statements that large numbers of people in this


country believe that the demonstrators were unlawfully and violently prevented by the police from demonstrating in a cause which did not happen to be pleasing to the Government of the day. The right hon. Gentleman may think that they were wrong, but if he refuses the inquiry which we are asking him to institute he will merely be reinforcing that belief and perhaps leading people to demonstrate still further. Let not the right hon. Gentleman imagine, if any such idea is held, that the people of this country are so tame or so cowed that they can be prevented from demonstrating in an orderly manner in favour of the causes in which they believe.

9.0 p.m.

Commander Bower: I want to say one short word because, being the son of a man who was a police officer for 30 years, I think a word should be said in defence of the police. I start by dealing with the last point raised by the hon. Member who has just spoken, the question of Spain. I think I shall be in order in referring to it, as he did, and I cannot forbear from remarking that hon. Members opposite were talking quite recently about what they said was the dreadful and wicked trade in arms and the making of private profit out of arms and that for some time now they have been advocating exactly that which they for so long condemned. That strikes me as extremely inconsistent, but only what I expected.
I quite agree that we, being so far a democratic country, have a right to demonstrate within reasonable limits. The trouble is that those limits sometimes become unreasonable. As one who has suffered from the attentions of Socialist mobs I cannot help feeling that probably there was a great deal more to be said for the police than was said by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Silverman: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that although I said nothing for the police I said nothing against them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cossacks."] If there is any misunderstanding let me make the position clear. In my speech I did not, and I do not now, identify myself with any statement that has been made. I said to the right hon. Gentleman time after time that I was not asking him to believe that the charges were proved and that I did not myself assume that they were proved. I asked him also not to assume that they

were false, but I said that charges had been made by persons who were apparently reputable and who were making their statements in good faith, so far as I could judge from those whom I had myself seen. I say that those charges are not to be believed or rejected, but are to be investigated.

Commander Bower: I am very glad to hear from the hon. Member that he does not necessarily believe everything he has said. As I have already stated, the free people of this country are perfectly at liberty to indulge in such demonstrations within reasonable limits, but it all depends whether those demonstrations are within reasonable limits or not. It is a very peculiar thing that in this country every demonstration where there is violence is either a Fascist or a Left-Wing demonstration. When hon. Members were in office you never got groups of Tories, going to Trafalgar Square and then surging along to this House, contrary to the Resolution which is passed by this House at the beginning of every Session. You never have crowds of Tories assaulting the police.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What did you do in Northern Ireland?

Commander Bower: We are not at the moment in Northern Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Your friends are!"] Nor are we in Southern Ireland. I seem to recollect that we have suffered something in the last few days from the friend of hon. Members opposite who come from Southern Ireland.

Mr. Bevan: Withdraw.

Commander Bower: I am not prepared to give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member entitled to identify Members of the House of Commons with suspicions which have been alleged against persons of committing outrages in this country recently?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): I do not think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman could be said to have identified any hon. Member with them. As far as I understood him he made a statement in which he made reference to the friends of hon. Members opposite. It is no business of mine what the effects of that might be upon hon. Mem-


bers, but merely to interpret to the House the Rules and customs of Debate; but I think I am right in saying that when statements of that kind are made about an indeterminate body of Members of the House, they are not considered as being outside the Rules of Order.

Mr. Bevan: Further on the point of Order. In the course of his statement the hon. and gallant Gentleman—there is no evidence of that so far in his speech—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member would certainly be more likely to have his complaint considered if he would at least try himself to avoid being offensive.

Mr. Bevan: I am asking your protection against the offensiveness of the hon. Member. In the course of his statement he said that on this side of the House there were friends of the persons, alleged to come from Southern Ireland, who have been committing outrages against innocent citizens in Great Britain, and I am asking you whether it is proper that an hon. Member should make charges of that sort in the House, and whether we ought not to have your protection against him?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think I am right in my statement of what the hon. and gallant Member said, and what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has just said does not differ very greatly from it. I gave my Ruling that I believe it to be in accordance with the general practice of this House that such a reference to a vague and indeterminate number of Members in the House cannot be regarded as being outside the Rules of Order.

Sir Stafford Cripps: On that point of Order. May I suggest that the reference of the hon. Gentleman opposite is necessarily limited to those who are present in the House on this side? It cannot have any other meaning. Would it be in order for me to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite are the friends of every cut-throat and thug in London? Surely it would be most grossly improper to make a remark in this House identifying the 15 or 20 hon. Gentlemen opposite with a very undesirable class of people; and surely we on this side are entitled to the same protection?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. and learned Member will agree with me

that the case would be more fairly tested if he were to ask whether it would be in order for him to make, about hon. Members on the Government side of the House, precisely the same remark that was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). My answer to that question would be that which I have already given.

Mr. Gallacher: Would not a remark of that kind, to the effect that people who have been causing damage in this country are the friends of Members on this side of the House, leave, if it remained unchallenged, the impression among the masses of the people of this country that Members on this side of the House were quite definitely associated with the acts of terrorism that have been alleged against certain people?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am bound to say that I do not regard it in that way. One has to take all these things in the way in which they strike one, and decide the question of order and not try to be a judge of what is or is not in good taste in debate. I certainly did not regard the remark about the friends of hon. Members as being one which clearly and definitely identified anyone with those particular individuals—[Interruption.]—Perhaps hon. Members will be good enough to observe silence while I am addressing the House—I did not regard it as being a definite accusation that any hon. Member of the House was connected with those persons in their nefarious conduct.

Commander Bower: I will now continue. I shall be within the recollection of the House when I say that my remark was nothing more or less than a retort to a taunt from the opposite side of the House that we were identified with Northern Ireland. I cannot see that my remark was any more objectionable.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of Order. May I now draw your attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has very definitely identified the Members on this side with the people who have committed outrages whereby many persons have been injured?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. Naturally, I have been listening very carefully, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Member,


in his reference to friends, mentioned any individual, but only friends of Southern Ireland, and I do not suppose that the hon. Member would regard that as offensive.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. and gallant Member drew attention to the fact in a way which seemed to infer that you yourself are wrong in the interpretation you put on his remarks.

Sir Ronald Ross: Before you reply, may I ask—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member was inferring that I was wrong in my Ruling, but, if he thinks I was wrong, it is open to him to draw attention to it in the appropriate way.

Sir R. Ross: I think, really, that I have a grievance. Might I draw attention to the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend described the suggestion that we are the friends of Northern Ireland as a taunt, whereas, of course, as you and everyone in the House will realise, it is just the contrary.

Commander Bower: It is so long since my speech was interrupted that I am in danger of forgetting what I was saying. I was pointing out that it is the privilege of citizens of this country to indulge in these demonstrations within limits, but that there is very little doubt that on this particular occasion the demonstration was not within the ordinarily accepted limits. Having, as I think I said, had some experience of these demonstrations, as a spectator and at my peril, all I would say is that I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that on these occasions the police—at least 98 per cent. of whom are drawn from the working class, and a very large number of whom, probably, from a political point of view sympathise with the demonstrators—are faced with an extremely difficult task, and that on the whole they perform that extremely difficult task very well indeed, and without fear or favour. On this occasion there were large crowds breaking the law, since this demonstration was in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament, and the House does not permit such demonstrations to take place while it is sitting, that permission being refused, not only by Members on this side of the House, but, very rightly, by hon. Members opposite

also. We agree that these demonstrations shall not take place while the House is sitting. There is no doubt that an attempt was made, if I may use a homely phrase, to gate-crash this House, and there is no doubt whatever that any members of the public, other than the demonstrators, who attend these demonstrations, must be subjected to certain risks if disorder of any kind arises.
I am perfectly prepared to admit that a great deal of the evidence produced by hon. Members opposite, although it is not sworn evidence, may be quite correct. But the police are only human beings, and it is very hard in a crowd, many members of which are rowdy, to discriminate between the law-abiding and those who are not law-abiding. I cannot see why, when we take into account the fact that these disorders invariably arise out of left-wing demonstrations, hon. Members opposite should be so extremely keen to attack the police. We all know that if you have a riot at a Fascist demonstration it is not a lot of respectable Tories who attack the police, and I am certain that on this occasion all those people who were brought up in the police court were very rightly brought there.

Mr. Dingle Foot: Even those who were acquitted?

Commander Bower: Naturally, in the case of those who were acquitted I accept the verdict of the court. But that reinforces my argument. Even the hon. Member who interjected that remark will admit that the police would not deliberately charge people whom they thought not guilty. If one is foolish enough to go to these demonstrations—and I gave it up years ago—one must expect if one gets in a scuffle, to suffer violence. A great deal too much is made of these matters. Time and again in the East End we have Fascist and anti-Fascist demonstrations and the demonstrators see fit to assault the police. One can understand a Jew attacking a Fascist, or a Fascist, in view of the peculiar mentality of Fascists, attacking a Jew; but why attack the police? It cannot be suggested that the police would attack these people without provocation.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. and gallant Member realise that that is the point of a great many of the statements I have made? Precisely that charge is


made, and it is made not by people who went to demonstrate—and who, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member thinks should put up with what they get—but by innocent passers-by who were there on their lawful occasions, having nothing to do with the demonstration.

Commander Bower: I was coming to that. In view of these charges, which are not sworn charges, against the police, I was intending to support the hon. Member—and I do so now—in suggesting that there should be an inquiry, so as to show how fatuous these unsupported charges are. We agree that the name of the police should be cleared. Words which are spoken in this House echo not only around the country but around the world, and I think this inquiry should be made. That was my original intention, as the son of a policeman, in getting up, and I am sure the police will welcome an inquiry so that their name, which attempts have been made to besmirch, should be supported in its proud position.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. G. Strauss: I am glad the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower) has supported the demand which has been made by my hon. Friend. Nobody knows whether these allegations are true or not. They are serious charges, and I suggested in my supplementary question the other day that it is just as much in the interests of the police that an inquiry should be made as in the interests of the body politic. The hon. and gallant Member seems to suggest that these people demonstrating deserved all they got because they were demonstrating—or walking about—in Parliament Square, and it is known that there is a ban on processions in Parliament Square. My answer is that a good deal of this alleged trouble took place a great way off, in Piccadilly Circus, and, secondly, members of the public are entitled to be in Parliament Square and entitled to come and see their Members of Parliament if they want to do so. If a demonstration is advertised to take place in Parliament Square the police are bound to prevent that demonstration taking place, but there is no excuse for brutality on the part of the police, if such brutality took place. Therefore, it is ridiculous for the hon. and gallant Member to say that people taking part in those demonstrations deserved all they got.

Commander Bower: I said there had been no evidence in this Debate to show that these demonstrators had been attacked by the police, and I adhere to that.

Mr. Strauss: But all the allegations which have been put forward do say just that, and not a single bit of evidence have I seen, from a number of people who were there and a number of people who have written to the papers, suggesting anything else, while no evidence was put forward by the hon. and gallant Member, or by the Home Secretary the other day, which suggested any rowdiness on the part of the public or any attack by a member of the public on the police, or that any member of the public defended himself when this alleged baton attack took place. It is alleged that these attacks took place on the initiative of the police, and it is important that they should be looked into. I agree that the police have a difficult duty on these occasions. It is not easy sometimes to control a crowd, particularly if that crowd becomes offensive or attacks the police or causes any serious trouble. But there is no suggestion that there was any attack by the public, and this demonstration, as far as we know, was quite peaceable. There is no reason, therefore, why there should have been any attacks by the police on the public. I desire to quote the evidence of one or two people who were there. Again, I cannot say whether this evidence is correct or not, but I maintain that it comes from sufficiently respectable people as not only to justify but to demand an inquiry, so that we may know where the truth lies. Here is a letter—and I can quote the name because it appeared in a journal called "Time and Tide"—sent by Marjorie Battcock, Hon. Secretary of the Hampstead Peace Council. She says:
It was while waiting in this queue"—
that is, outside the House of Commons to see the Member—
with several other constituents that a demonstration arrived shouting 'We demand arms for Spain.' This was their sole slogan, and their conduct was irrefutably orderly, a fact which did not, however, deter the police some ten minutes later from charging not only them but also the waiting queue. We were then not merely driven with the demonstrators towards Vauxhall Bridge, but each side street was deliberately cordoned off by the mounted police, so that there was no chance of escape. Many of the police were shouting 'If you're


so sympathetic to Spain why don't you go there? 'Elderly men and women were being struck brutally from every direction. A poster bearing the words 'Food for the women and children of Spain' was snatched from a youth by a mounted policeman who struck him violently on the head, flinging his placard over an area railing.
This lady was accompanied by an elderly gentleman who came into the Lobby a bit later and saw me. He was naturally very distressed and excited, and told me the story in outline, and I asked him to send a written statement to me telling me exactly what had happened. He did that, and I have it here, available to the Home Secretary or anybody else, confirming what that lady wrote, and adding various other details. I happen to know very well indeed a lady who went to Piccadilly Circus and saw various actions of the police there, and, as far as it is possible to vouch for veracity, I can certainly vouch for the veracity and honesty of this lady. She writes:
I was in Piccadilly Circus at about 10.45 p.m. on the night of Tuesday, 31st January last, and saw a large number of foot police coming from the direction of Vine Street Police Station. On arrival in the Circus the police immediately set about pushing and prodding people in the back. Although I was one of the crowd the police adopted a more gentle demeanour towards me, the reason being, I assumed, that the fur coat which I was wearing placed me in the eyes of the police as a 'respectable person'…. The worst incident I saw was that of a young man, who was obvious because he had a dark beard—he was walking quickly along Coventry Street shouting, 'Arms for Spain.' He was followed by two young constables, who thrust through the crowd and continually punched the young man violently about the head. They followed him right along the street doing this …. I followed them with a view to giving my name and address to the man in case he should be locked up. The police, however, made no attempt to take him into custody.
I would like to quote next the evidence of a man who is well known for his efforts to preserve the civil liberties of this country, Ronald Kidd. I know that sometimes his name is not welcomed in some quarters because he feels it his public duty to investigate allegations with regard to breaches of civil liberty and ill behaviour of the police. But I think everyone will recognise him as a man of very high repute who would not deliberately say something that was not true. I will read an extract from a statement made by him:

As Big Ben struck 10 o'clock one police officer started roughly hustling a few of the young people, who offered no resistance and continued on their way. This same officer then drew his truncheon and immediately eight other officers drew theirs.
Hon. Members will remember the Home Secretary said that as far as he was informed no truncheons were used by the police.
All nine officers rained blows on the heads of the young people. I was in the roadway some five yards from these young people, and I could hear the thwacks of the heavy boxwood truncheons on the men's and women's heads. Most of the young women were wearing silk handkerchiefs over their hair and most of the young men had no hats. The blows were heavy, and the officers made no attempt to strike the young people merely on the arms or shoulders; every blow was rained directly on the head. The young people then started to run, and I was unable to get names and addresses of those who had been struck. I gave my card to a tall, fair-haired young man who had received a terrific blow on the head, and he promised to communicate with me. In the mêlée that followed this police attack I was only able to get the number of one police officer"—
which he states, but which I will not give,
who had struck the tall, fair-haired young man
I have a number of other similar pieces of evidence from people who were there, and some from others whom I do not know, but I have no reason to doubt their bona fides and their honesty. I cannot say whether these statements are true or not. I was not there. But I say these charges are numerous and serious enough to justify the demand that there should be some investigation. The only small bit of evidence I can contribute is that I came from my constituency in my car into Palace Yard that evening a little before 10 o'clock. There were a number of police in Palace Yard, and quite a few of them certainly were in a very excited condition and behaving in a very unusual manner. I wondered what was up, because I did not realise that there was going to be a procession, but I made a mental note of the time and that groups of the police were behaving in an extraordinary manner. I do not suggest that that is direct evidence, but it is a piece of indirect evidence which may be of interest to the House.
There have been on previous occasions accusations made when other demonstrations have taken place that the police have not acted properly. There


has been on these occasions evidence put forward by a number of people who are also respectable and who have offered to come forward at any inquiry that the Home Secretary agreed to call. The Home Secretary on those previous occasions, I think, has invariably refused to have such a public inquiry. I think that is very unfortunate indeed. It looks as if the Home Secretary is trying to protect the police from being subjected to inquiry which might prove that some of the police were guilty of behaviour which was unbecoming to them. I do not think that was the intention of the Home Secretary, but I think it is as much in the interest of the police as of the public that full inquiry should be made into those allegations. It is not just one person who writes a hysterical letter and says, "I saw something awful happen"; it is a large number of people who make these allegations, and there are sufficient of them, I suggest, to justify the Home Secretary in taking very careful note of what they say. If he does not have an immediate inquiry made into these allegations I suggest that he or the Under-Secretary should himself see some of these people, make a preliminary investigation himself to see whether there is a prima facie case. Then I believe he would himself become convinced that an enquiry of that sort is very necessary.
May I finally say that there is one very strong reason at the moment why these accusations should be cleared up? As the House is aware, it has only recently been announced that the air-raid wardens in London are going to come under the control of the police. I am not going to enter into the merits of that proposal. It is well known, however, that it has given rise to a great deal of resentment among numbers of wardens who do not like the idea of coming under the police, instead of serving the local authorities under whom they had enlisted. The Lord Privy Seal will have very great difficulty indeed in preventing many of these air-raid wardens from retiring or in getting new air-raid wardens to enlist as long as charges of this kind are flying about, charges which may be quite untrue, but which have been made in public quite honestly by people who believe that they are true, which give a bad name to the police.
As a Londoner I am not only anxious that demonstrations should be peaceably

conducted and that our streets should be orderly, but that where there are processions of any kind, the behaviour of the police on all occasions should be of a high standard. The best way of ensuring that is for the Home Secretary, when serious accusations are brought against the police by a number of respectable people, to order an investigation to be made into these allegations without a moment's delay so that the Home Secretary, the House and the public shall know exactly whether such allegations are true or not.

9.37 p.m.

Captain Heilgers: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said that the statements were not necessarily credible.

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that. I said nothing of the kind. I said that the statements were highly credible, but that they were not proved until they were given in evidence, which is exactly why I want the inquiry.

Captain Heilgers: If that is the case, I am sorry to find that the hon. Member read out a letter in which it was stated that the police behaved like Cossacks. That is a slur upon a very excellent body of men. I would point out that at just about the same time that this demonstration was being held, there was another demonstration in London—the Suffolk farmers' and farmworkers' demonstration. The promoters and organisers of that demonstration went to Scotland Yard a few days before and saw the police, and asked exactly what route they should follow and how they should conduct themselves.

Mr. Bevan: There was nothing unusual in that. It was a normal demonstration. There was no demonstration in Parliament Square.

Captain Heilgers: There was no demonstration in Parliament Square because the Suffolk fanners and farmworkers were advised that they should not go to Parliament Square, and they took that advice. They were told that if they formed on Tower Hill they would be allowed to march as far as the Victoria Embankment. I saw that march. They marched to Victoria Embankment where, on the advice of the police, as they got to the Temple they quietly dispersed and made their way to Central Hall, Westminster,


where they held an orderly meeting. Why did not this demonstration follow the same tactics? [An HON. MEMBER: "They did."] If they had there would have been a very different ending to the march, and there would have been no questions asked. I saw something of what happened, and I think the demonstrators on this occasion asked for trouble, and in some ways it was a pity they did not find it.

9.40 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) has stated that the farmers did not meet with any difficulty. I think that there would have been very great difficulties with the farmers if certain action had not been taken by the Government. They were fortunate in getting their demands accepted before the demonstration took place.

Captain Heilgers: Whatever the reasons for the demonstrations, or whether they were changed at the last moment, I am certain from my knowledge of Suffolk fanners and farmworkers that they would have behaved very much better than these people.

Sir S. Cripps: I had the pleasure of addressing them in Hyde Park a year or two ago on the tithe question, and they were a very strong mob who might have been influenced to march on Downing Street with sticks and staves at almost any moment.

Captain Heilgers: I also happened to be there to listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman on that occasion. My conclusion may be wrong, but I think that in his speech he did his best to incite them to violent action.

Sir S. Cripps: That only shows the danger of people speaking about things they do not know. I was present and I heard my own speech, so I know what was said. Let me turn to the events of 31st January, because, in my submission to the House, the matters which have been disclosed quite clearly demand some inquiry, and they demand it from two points of view. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman, if these accusations were made against him in public, would be the first person to say, "I demand the right to clear myself in public." Personally that would be my immediate reaction if I had had these

things said about me, and I believe that the police are just as entitled to that public declaration that they did not do these things if these things were not done.
I was not present at these occurrences, but I have some little experience of dealing with statements taken from witnesses. Professionally, one has always to gauge the chances of success in an action by gauging the reliability of the witnesses' statements, and one therefore is naturally perhaps somewhat skilled in reading statements and judging from these the credibility of the witnesses. One of the rules, which, I am glad to say, is strictly observed in my profession is that you must never yourself see the witnesses of fact before the trial of the case, because of the obvious danger of an advocate influencing the witness as to what he may say at the trial. One does not have sworn statements. It would be highly improper and wrong under the Statute of Declaration Acts to have sworn statements. One has a statement made by a reliable witness and that statement is laid before one.
Before speaking this evening I made it my duty to read with care these statements which my hon. Friends have collected. I am bound to say—and I say this with a full sense of responsibility, with such knowledge and skill as I have—that after reading these statements there is a prima facie case which requires inquiry. The way in which the statements are made and the very circumstantial way in which the statements link up together, which is one of the tests always of evidence, is very circumstantial. They are not statements of the discredited or criminal party which one has sometimes to disregard in evidence. Suppose that instead of being a question for inquiry it was a question of an action in court for some reason or other I should have no hesitation on these statements in advising my clients to proceed with the action, because I should say that the nature and quality of the evidence is such that it appeals to me, as a person skilled in this matter, as being of the sort which is likely to turn out to be credible and reliable. Though I do not in any sense vouch for it, anyone who has had any experience of the law knows that statements which appear very reliable when tested often, by cross-examination, appear to be nothing of the sort. You cannot test them in any way except by cross-examination. There is no other way by which you can test these statements.
If the matter is to rest where it is to-day, what will be the position? Statements have been publicly read out. Many of the statements have been printed in the newspapers in letters signed by people whose names can be tested and whose addresses can be visited. If nothing further happens, these statements will be taken as being the facts. However much the right hon. Gentleman may say that he has seen the chief constable, or the sergeant, and that he does not believe the statements are accurate, nobody will accept that as a test, because the people who are instructing the right hon. Gentleman are the very people who are accused. It is obvious, therefore, that nobody with a judicial mind could conceivably accept the excuses put forward by the very people who are accused. They may be perfectly justified, I am not for a moment suggesting that they are not, but they must be tested. Nobody can be satisfied with an answer that cannot be tested. Just as I should be completely unwilling to accept any of these statements that have been read out tonight as the truth without testing them, so I should be absolutely unwilling to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as the truth, without testing it.
The only argument that can be raised to the contrary—this is an argument which, unfortunately, anyone who practises in the courts knows from time to time does influence the mind, especially of magistrates—is that what a policeman says is true and what the ordinary citizen says is not true. If a policeman brings a motor charge against the ordinary citizen the tendency is always to accept the policeman's evidence. The policeman is an excellent fellow, a first-rate fellow, highly trained, but he is not necessarily any more truthful than anybody else. The ordinary citizen has as much right to be believed as the policeman. We, as ordinary citizens, are liable to-morrow to be stopped by the police in connection with a motor offence or something else, and if we are put in the dock and there are two policemen on the other side, we feel that we have as much right to be believed as they have, and we feel very hurt indeed when we find that it does not work out in that way. I know of many people who have made most violent protests, not people of the left wing but right wing people. They have said: "It is

monstrous. I have been charged with so-and-so, and two policemen went into the box and their evidence was believed, and I was not believed. "All I can say is that they had their chance of cross-examining, they had their chance of giving their evidence and of themselves being cross-examined. If the law goes wrong, it does its best; it weighs up the evidence between the two—

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the hon. and learned Member making a charge against the police or against the magistrates? I have experience. The policeman is always sworn and gives his evidence on oath, the same as the ordinary individual. Therefore, it is the magistrates who make the decision in the case.

Sir S. Cripps: Of course, it is. I am perfectly aware of that. What I said was that it is a well known complaint—the public largely shut their eyes to it—that there are benches of magistrates before whom the evidence of the police is in fact preferred to the evidence of the ordinary individual.

Sir J. Lamb: Not in my experience.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not suggesting that it is so on the hon. Member's bench of magistrates; but there are hundreds of benches, and it is a well known fact that on some benches the police evidence has cast over it a sort of halo which does not extend to the evidence of the ordinary individual. All I am suggesting is that there is no earthly reason why these statements at present before us should not have just as much credence given to them as anything that the right hon. Gentleman has been told by the police. Both of them are untested statements. Some people say that there was a demonstration. Other people say there was not a demonstration, that all that happened was that a lot of people came down to Parliament Square, but that there was no demonstration. It is said that there was a long queue of people which was charged by the mounted police, and that those were people waiting to see Members of Parliament.
These things are not proved one way or the other, and in such a state of affairs it is highly unsatisfactory that these suggestions should be left unanswered. They cannot be answered by the right hon. Gentleman. Much as I respect him, much


as I believe in his honesty, I cannot accept his statement, which is based purely on what the police have told him and nothing else. I cannot accept the statement of a defendant which is not tested by some method or other. Therefore, I do ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all seriousness, for the sake of the whole atmosphere of the administration of justice in London and the relations of the public to the police, which is a matter of vital importance in preserving order, and may in certain circumstances which might happen in this country be of much more importance, to inquire into this matter further. Everything should be done to preserve unsullied the integrity of the police. When these grave accusations are made by responsible people it is vitally important that the allegations made against the police should be tested. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have an inquiry.

9.52 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I have listened, and I am sure the House has listened, to the speeches made on both sides with the utmost care, and I appreciate as much as anybody else that both the hon. Members opposite who brought forward this matter dissociated themselves from the statements read out. They did not express a view either way, that the statements were necessarily true or untrue, but they put them forward in the course of what they believed to be their public duty. These accusations are very grave ones to make against the police. I do not think there is any difference between hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and hon. Members on this side in their desire to preserve the good name of the Police Force. On that we are all agreed. There is no one in this country who does not look upon the average policeman as a friend of the citizen. The policeman him self is an ordinary citizen, and as an ordinary citizen he is as much entitled as anyone else to have his accusers come out in the open and bring their accusations against him openly and to state their names and addresses. I do not wish to be offensive, but it is not fair to hide behind the anonymity which to a certain extent a read statement in the House of Commons is bound to confer upon the person who makes it—

Mr. G. Strauss: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that the persons whose statements have been read by my hon. Friend and myself are perfectly prepared to come forward and give their names and addresses to the Home Secretary or to any other inquiry that may be set up?

Sir A. Southby: I agree that that is so, but until an inquiry has been granted, and I hope it will not be granted, or until other action is taken, the writers of those statements remain anonymous. It is as much in the interest of hon. Members on the other side of the House as of hon. Members on this side that law and order should be preserved in Parliament Square. It is as important for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that he should be able to come to this House and to state his case as it is for the hon. and gallant Member for Cleveland (Commander Bower). It is essential that all of us should have free and unrestricted passage to this House. It is absolutely essential that there should be law and order in Parliament Square, and that no demonstrations should take place. If demonstrations do take place, the police have a very difficult duty to perform. They must, obviously, use a certain-amount of force. Whatever demonstration takes place in Parliament Square must be dispersed, and to do that a certain amount of force has to be used.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) said that in Piccadilly Circus there was interference with the traffic. As citizens we cannot go about our business if other citizens, misguided as I think they are, are going to lie about in the streets. If they do that, they must be removed.

Mr. Silverman: I must apologise for interrupting the hon. and gallant Member, but I do not want to be accused of things which I did not say. I did not say—I do not know, I was not there—whether there was any interference with traffic in Piccadilly Circus. That suggestion came not from me but from the right hon. Gentleman in the course of a reply to a question. I do not know whether it is true or not. No one knows unless there is an inquiry.

Sir A. Southby: I accept, of course, what the hon. Member says, but if traffic is impeded in any part of London by individuals who deem it to be of some use


to the community to lie about in the streets, quite obviously, in the interests of society as a whole, they must be removed; and they can only be removed by force. The difficulty which arises here is this. Hon. Members opposite are desirous of an inquiry. It is very easy to bring charges against the police, it is, I was going to say, too easy, and I deplore any fishing inquiry being set up to investigate charges against the police which may afterwards be found to be unsubstantiated. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the police ought not to lie under an imputation like this because it is bad for the good feeling which should exist between the police and the general public. But I have listened in vain during the Debate for any reference to the right which the general public have of applying for summonses against the police if they think the police have done anything wrong.

Sir S. Cripps: Surely the hon. and gallant Member has heard in the statements which have been read that in the circumstances it was impossible to identify the policeman. I dare say there are some cases where summonses may be brought, cases where the number of the policeman was taken as was done by Mr. Ronald Kidd, but in many of the cases they are unable to identify the policemen who took part.

Sir A. Southby: I am glad the hon. and learned Member has qualified his statement by saying that there are two or three cases in which the number of the policeman may have been taken. In the cases where the writers of these letters and the makers of these charges took the numbers of the police, if they have applied for summonses against the police, it would be impossible to hold an inquiry because their cases would be sub judice. But if these occurrences took place it was open to the people to make complaint to the Home Secretary. Nothing stood in the way of the writers of these letters writing to the Home Secretary, giving their names and their evidence, and asking the right hon. Gentleman what he could do in the matter. Where they have taken the number of the policeman they could have applied to the courts for a summons against the individual policeman. Listening to some of the evidence

I am bound to say that I do not think it is necessary to test it in a court of law. There is the story of nine policemen frequently bludgeoning the heads of a number of young men and young women. Our policemen are not distinguished by their smallness or their weakness, and a truncheon is a pretty unpleasant weapon. If they used their bludgeon with great force repeatedly on the heads of men and women who were not wearing anything more than a silk handkerchief on their heads, I suggest that the victims of so gross an outrage, if it took place, must have finished up in hospital.

Mr. Silverman: I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member was in his place when I made my speech or whether he listened to my speech. In my first statement I told him that one lady was set on and when she tried to get into touch with a superior officer she was set upon again, and did in fact end up in Westminster Hospital.

Sir A. Southby: I am afraid the hon. Member did not pay me the compliment of listening to what I said. I listened with great care to the speech he made. I was not referring to his statement about the lady, but referring specifically to the statement about nine policemen who deliberately bludgeoned a young man and lady on the head. I repeat that if the bludgeoning was of the character which has been stated in the evidence given by the individuals, it is fantastic to suggest that the victims of such an outrage would do anything else but finish up in the hospital.

Sir S. Cripps: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that he knows better what happened in Whitehall at 10 o'clock at night than someone who was within five yards of it, or is he suggesting that the person who was within five yards, Mr. Ronald King, whom I know personally, is deliberately telling a lie?

Sir A. Southby: I suggest that the hon. and learned Member is not entitled to cross-examine me. I did not interrupt him when he was making his speech and he has already interrupted me two or three times. It may be that I have touched a weak spot in the hon. and learned Member's demand for an inquiry, but it is hardly fair for him by a process of cross-examination to endeavour to discredit me. I am not a witness nor is the


hon. and learned Member a witness, although it is his profession to take either side on occasion.
In regard to these accusations made against the police I still say that the proper duty of a citizen who has a complaint against the police is to take out a summons in the courts. If these occurrences were watched so closely by these eye-witnesses it is, to say the least, extraordinary that they were unable to identify more than one or two of the police, and they should have made a complaint immediately to a superior police officer or applied for a summons in the ordinary way. It would be a bad thing if the custom grew up that whenever charges were made, unfounded charges as they may be, against the police of this country the Home Secretary should immediately grant a fishing inquiry. One thing we have to do, and that is to see that our police force does its duty honourably, fairly and impartially to the community. The view of most people in the country is that the police force is exemplary in the way it carries out its duties, and for that reason I think that no real case has been made out for the inquiry asked for The public have their rights against the police, and the police have their rights as ordinary citizens. I think they are entitled, when accusations are made against them, that the makers of these accusations should come forward openly in court, swear their accusations, and then the hon. and learned Member will be able to cross-examine either the police or the complainants, whichever side he chooses to take.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: The hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) has made some cogent criticisms as to the credibility of some of the evidence which has been produced by hon. Members. It was not vouched for, and no attempt was made to vouch for it. It was merely produced as statements made by responsible persons. The hon. and gallant Member has stated his reasons for saying why these statements should not be believed. Is it not obvious that we cannot try the credibility of these statements this evening, and that that is one of the reasons why an inquiry should be granted? It is no use the hon. and gallant Member saying that people must produce evidence which is worthy of some credence, which can be tested. It can

only be tested by an impartial and judicial inquiry. I cannot understand why again and again the hon. and gallant Member repeated, as though it were some kind of magic charm, the phrase "We must not have a fishing inquiry." Why would this inquiry be particularly fishing? A fishing inquiry is one that starts from nothing in the hope that it will get something.

Sir A. Southby: That is why I referred to it as a fishing inquiry.

Mr. Griffith: In that case the hon. and gallant Member assumed beforehand, and assumed arbitrarily, that any statement that is made which does not suit his case has got to be disregarded.

Sir A. Southby: I did not assume anything of the kind.

Mr. Griffith: In that case, the hon. and gallant Member used the words "fishing inquiry" without any sense or intelligence whatever.

Sir A. Southby: The hon. Member is not entitled to set himself up as the only judge of what is intelligent.

Mr. Griffith: I was examining the words used by the hon. and gallant Member, and I suggested their only possible meaning. The hon. and gallant Member confirmed it, and then immediately proceeded to deny it. His suggestion that there must be in Parliament Square and round about this House an immunity from demonstrations is one which I, at any rate, entirely support, but one of the issues in this case is as to how far there was a demonstration. I do not know, I was not there. It is a matter which requires to be inquired into. Even if there was a demonstration and, even if we are all agreed that such demonstrations are undesirable, surely that does not mean that any kind of violence is justified in getting rid of the demonstration. Even if an action which is illegal is taking place, the police can still be called to question if there is good evidence showing that they employed, in dealing with the situation, a degree of violence which was entirely unnecessary.
I have made these observations because I could not see why, on his own grounds, the hon. and gallant Member was opposed to an inquiry. I would add that my own accounts of what took place—they are


not first-hand accounts—support the view which the hon. and gallant Member has taken. I have heard from a member of the Left Wing—from a gentleman who was, in fact, a candidate of the party opposite and who went specially to watch the demonstration with a view to reporting on it—that in his view no unnecessary violence was used by the police. I feel bound to give that testimony, but it is only one. One cannot prove a negative in these matters. A man who comes forward and says that he did not see something is not necessarily refuting those who, perhaps in another part of Parliament Square, did see something else.
What I am saying is that we cannot settle this matter entirely by quoting secondhand information from one side or the other. All we can do is to say that here is a certain amount of information constituting a grave charge against the police—which is not impossible in itself—which is put forward by people who believe it, which is supported by hon. Members who are prepared to put it before the House and therefore believe it to be worthy of reporting; and that as long as that lasts there will be an uneasy feeling in the minds of the public that something which has been raised, something affecting public order and decency, is being in some way hushed up and passed over. I believe that if an inquiry were instituted, the police at least would come out of it very well indeed, and I hope that is the case. It is in their interests that I desire that this inquiry should be made. I do not take the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom that it is wrong to raise the matter in this way in the House. I think hon. Members are eminently the proper persons to take up and raise the question, because we are ultimately responsible for what the police do. Through the Home Secretary, who is responsible to us, we are responsible for the action which the police take. Therefore, it is right that these questions should be raised in this House and that we should, wherever there is any doubt as to what has been done, ask for an inquiry.

10.11 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I was anxious, before intervening in the Debate, to hear the details of the case that is being made for an inquiry. Let me say

at once that I make no criticism of any hon. Member for raising questions of this kind in the House. The police are a great civilian service in which every Member has a close interest, and the Home Secretary is the Minister who is expected to answer for their actions. I have made it my business, as far as I could, to make the fullest investigation into the allegations that were made at Question Time last week, and I will give the House the account which in my view—I say, in my view—is accurate. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps)—who I am glad to see is still on the Front Bench, and indeed, I would congratulate him upon having a Popular Front in being—seemed to be doubtful as to whether or not there was a demonstration. I am quite certain that there need be no doubt upon that score. A demonstration undoubtedly took place on 31st January. It was very well organised. The Communist party of London took a very active part in the organisation of the demonstration. Perhaps the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will have something to say about that later on. I have here the advertisement that was published on the subject in the "Daily Worker":
All Out for Arms and Food for Spain. The greatest Effort Yet. To-night, 31st January (Opening of Parliament). 8 p.m. rally and march, Chenies Street. 9.15 p.m. All in Parliament Square.

Sir S. Cripps: What is wrong with that?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not saying whether it is right or not. I am answering the doubts in the minds of hon. Members opposite as to whether or not there was a demonstration. The advertisement goes on:
11 p.m. Rally in Piccadilly Circus. The London District Committee of the Communist Party calls upon every Party Member and supporter to turn out and make this protest the greatest action yet for Spain.
In view of that notice and what took place subsequently, I do not think any hon. Member will say that a demonstration did not take place upon that particular evening.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think anybody said there was no demonstration. I said there was no demonstration in Parliament Square or, alternatively, that one of the issues involved in the inquiry would be whether or not there was a demonstration in Parliament Square.

Sir S. Hoare: Let me continue, and the House will judge whether there was a demonstration in Parliament Square or not. The times shown in the notice are significant—8 p.m., rally and march, Chenies Street, Tottenham Court Road; 9.15, Parliament Square; 11 p.m., Piccadilly Circus. At 8 p.m. Mr. J. A. Mahon and Mr. Edward Bramley, of the London District Committee of the Communist party, addressed a gathering of about 2,500 people at Chenies Street. Mr. Bramley concluded his speech as follows:
Sir Philip Game holds me responsible for this meeting and demonstration and I fully accept responsibility on behalf of the London District Committee of the Communist party of Great Britain. I fully understand exactly what it means. It means that legally we have no right to march beyond Cranbourn Street. Therefore, I accept no responsibility for any procession beyond Cranbourn Street … I intend … to march in an organised procession from this meeting to Cambridge Circus. I will have the banners removed and I will myself walk as a citizen of this great city on the pavement to Parliament Square and no one in this country can stop me, and if you care to do the same thing no one can stop you.
At 8.30 a procession was formed in Chenies Street and marched by way of Tottenham Court Road and Charing Cross Road to Cambridge Circus chanting all the time, "We demand arms for Spain." At Cambridge Circus the demonstrators broke into groups and continued on the footway to Parliament Square, where some of them joined a queue awaiting admission to the House of Commons but the majority paraded up and down the vicinity of St. Stephen's entrance still chanting. Up to about 9.20 p.m. there was no queue outside the Palace of Westminster, but about that time a queue was rapidly organised about five or six persons abreast and several hundreds of persons gathered in Old Palace Yard, St. Margaret's Street and the neighbourhood; passage to and from the House became impossible and traffic could not proceed. This is not only my unsupported description of what happened. It is confirmed by the "News Chronicle," a paper in which, I understand, many criticisms have been made against the action of the police, and a paper which, as hon. Members will see, would not be biased in favour of the police action on that particular evening. The "News Chronicle" on the following day said;
By the time the crowd reached Parliament Square there was no holding them and they streamed along the side of the Parliament

building, calling their demand so loudly that Members came out of the House to see them. When the pressure on the doors and gates grew so great that they might have been forced, police reinforcements galloped up.
I quote that to the House to show that the situation looked like being a serious situation.

Mr. Silverman: What is the right hon. Gentleman quoting?

Sir S. Hoare: The "News Chronicle."

Sir S. Cripps: Does he accept every statement which appears in the "News Chronicle" or only what suits him?

Sir S. Hoare: That is rather a general question. In pursuance of their duties under the Sessional Order which requires the police to keep clear the passages leading to the House, and under the general law which prohibits the assembly of more than 50 persons in the streets within one mile of the Houses of Parliament while Parliament is sitting, it was the clear duty of the police to clear Parliament Square and the police therefore began to shepherd the crowds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat the words "shepherd the crowds" from the front of, and to the north and south of New Palace Yard carriage gates. This was effected fairly easily until a point opposite St. Stephen's entrance, when the queue lost its formation and became merged with the shouting crowd which completely filled Old Palace Yard. The crowds went south as far as the Peers' entrance and then returned to Parliament Square, when they were again turned about. Instructions were then given that cordons should be placed in position to prevent any further demonstrators entering Parliament Square, and a line of police was drawn across St. Margaret's Street and the crowd shepherded in a southerly direction. All this was done quietly and cautiously, no truncheons were drawn, and senior police officers who mingled with the crowd definitely assert that there was no unnecessary force used by the police.
I may say, in passing, that the Commissioner of Police was himself present. After Parliament Square had been cleared, the demonstrators started to reassemble, in accordance with the plan, in Piccadilly Circus, where from 10.30 p.m. onwards they paraded in groups, shouting, "We demand arms for Spain." The police were present in large numbers and were


able to prevent any noticeable interference with either traffic or pedestrians. At 11 p.m. a number of men and women attempted to lie down in the roadway, but were immediately arrested. The police kept the crowd on the move, and normal conditions were restored by 11.45 p.m. Altogether 51 persons were arrested, and in 47 cases the persons charged were found guilty. In one case a man was given one guinea costs against the police on the ground of mistaken arrest.
Now I come to the complaints, or rather the absence of complaints, at the Home Office in connection with these incidents. There have been a number of letters published in the newspapers, and the Commissioner has received about a dozen letters complaining of the action of the police, but I have received no complaints, and that is a very curious fact, because as a rule the Home Secretary receives many complaints on occasions of this kind. The Commissioner has received about a dozen letters complaining of the action of the police, but none of these—and I ask hon. Members opposite to note this—is in a sufficiently definite form to enable the complaints to be investigated. Typical examples from the letters written, to the Commissioner are as follows. One writer refers to the
outrageous and brutal behaviour of the police in Piccadilly Circus.
Another says:
I witnessed police intelligence that only bears comparison with that of the sub-humans of the second ice age.
A third says that the "police were mad"; and a fourth that
innocent people were pushed, kicked and ridden down with horses
and that
young girls, old ladies and young boys were lying unconscious on the pavement, while the police arrested anyone who tried to aid them.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that those charges are indefinite?

Sir S. Hoare: I do. In all former cases the complaints received have been sufficiently definite to base investigations upon them and to inquire into the particular police against whom complaints have been made. Here, so far as I understand, no complaints have been made against individual policemen, and neither the Commissioner nor I have been given

the name or number of any individual constable. In former cases of the kind we have always been given information of that kind. Secondly, there were 51 prosecutions in open court, with evidence taken on oath, and there were 47 convictions for various offences. Then I come to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silver-man) and find that various injuries are said to have been inflicted upon various individuals. It is a fact that three cases, so my information goes to show, were brought to our notice. Two of the cases were of men. One of the men was drunk and the complaint was dismissed. In another case there was found to be no foundation for the complaint. The case of the lady which the hon. Member quoted was, I think, the case of Miss Joyce Lee, who, I regret to find, is a constituent of mine. She was seen in Abingdon Street being picked up from the edge of the double curb against the upper one of which, it appeared, she had struck her head. She was seen to be bleeding from a cut over the right eye. When medical assistance was offered, she shouted "Arms for Spain," and rushed away into the crowd.

Sir S. Cripps: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, I do. Does she deny it? It was subsequently ascertained that she attended Westminster Hospital where she was treated for a cut over the eye, and she alleged that the injury was due to the action of the police. That is the only case of injury that has come to our notice. I cannot help thinking that if there had been cases of men and women bludgeoned by truncheons we should inevitably have had complaints. We have not had a single complaint until to-night. No hospital in London, so far as I gather, treated any case of this kind.

Mr. Silverman: Here you have a case where a woman is admitted by both sides to have been injured. She gives one account of how she came to be injured. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has obtained another, and a quite different account of how the injury was caused. Could there be a clearer case for inquiry and for witnesses on both sides to be confronted with one another and cross-examined?

Sir S. Hoare: The hon. Gentleman's interruption has confirmed me in the view


I am about to express. I was coming to the complaints that have been made by the hon. Member and others of his hon. Friends this evening. I desire to point out to the House that this is the first time that I have heard the details of these cases. Why have I not received them before? In former cases it has always been the practice—I do not mind who was Home Secretary—for the Home Secretary to be given information before cases of this kind are brought to the House. I am prepared to investigate cases of that kind but I am not prepared to accept them without investigation, and I express my regret that I was not given notice of them before.

Sir S. Cripps: When the right hon. Gentleman says he is prepared to investigate them, does that mean to send the police to investigate them?

Sir S. Hoare: No.

Sir S. Cripps: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what means he intends to use?

Sir S. Hoare: Let me continue my comments upon the proceedings of 31st January. It is quite obvious from the account which I have given that it was a carefully organised demonstration, so organised that it was almost certain to lead to trouble in the streets—this picketing of the House of Commons, this prearranged demonstration in Piccadilly Circus just at the busiest moment of traffic in the evening; and I can well understand in the confusion that was bound to take place in conditions of this kind that many people honestly believed that things were going on that were not going on. That inevitably happens in conditions of this kind, but I am satisfied, and my information comes not exclusively from the police, that throughout this very difficult evening the police behaved with great restraint. I claim that I am supported in stating that to the House by the evidence I have just given to the House, namely, that no complaints in detail were sent either to the Commissioner or to me, that cases which came before the courts were decided against the people who took part in these demonstrations, and that only this one case of injury was treated in any London hospital.
Lastly, I say to the House that it is impossible that any Home Secretary, at a few minutes' notice, hearing for the first

time the details of cases that may or may not be true, should agree to an inquiry of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne into the conduct of the police when he is convinced himself that the conduct of the police was exemplary; but standing as I do here, and hearing the cases as they have been put to me, I will say to hon. Members opposite that whilst I am not prepared to grant a public inquiry I am prepared to look into these cases myself if hon. Members will give me the details. I am prepared, if necessary, to see some of the complainants myself, and if I then find that there is a case for further investigation it will be my duty to order it, but as things are now I hope I have convinced the great majority of hon. Members that there is no case at present for any such inquiry and no justification at present for the charges which have been made against the police.

Sir S. Cripps: As far as I am concerned I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Is he prepared either personally or through his Under-Secretary to interview any persons sent to him by those who have brought this matter forward and who are considered worthy of his interest; that is to say, if we select a dozen or fifteen people whom we believe to be reliable people and worth his interviewing will he or his Under-Secretary personally interview those persons?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not give so wide an undertaking in reply to the hon. and learned Member's request, but I will see how far I can go.

Sir S. Cripps: I would press the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. He has tentatively, at least, said that he would make some inquiry. While we are grateful to him for the distance he has gone, what we are anxious to know is what that inquiry is going to be. If it is going to be an inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary we are quite prepared that this should be the preliminary stage; and if as a result he thinks some public inquiry ought to be held we know that he will say that a public inquiry should be held. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman should get the first-hand evidence and not have it investigated by somebody else, unless that is somebody who is outside the police. [An HON.
MEMBER: "Why?"] Because the police force are those who are accused in this matter and, however reliable they may be, quite clearly they cannot be the people to investigate it. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that a limited number of people who are put forward for the purposes of this investigation would be seen either by himself or by his Under-secretary?

Sir S. Hoare: I must see the actual proposals, but I can tell the hon. and learned Member that when I said I would make an inquiry myself I meant an inquiry of that kind.

Major Procter: If my right hon. Friend inquires into these events will he see in what way the people can be protected against the annoyance and the nuisance of large crowds of people going about the streets at night in this way interfering with individual liberty? Will he see whether these processions can be cut into sections so that the traffic can get through and whether they will obey the traffic lights?

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Before saying a word or two about the "carefully prepared demonstration" I would like to clear away two illusions that seem to exist. An hon. Member at the back spoke about a fishing inquiry, but he did a bit of fishing himself and caught a red herirng which he seemed to consider represented the weak argument in our case. He asked, and the Home Secretary took it up, that if batons had been used, where were the hospital cases? I can tell the hon. Member and the Home Secretary that I have been attacked by half a dozen police and my head has been opened in several places. I have been soaked with blood as a consequence, but I never went near a hospital. I have seen dozens of people with blood pouring from their heads and they never went near a hospital. It is an utter illusion to think that when batons are used and heads are split and blood is flowing, people go to hospitals. They go to the nearest friend, get their heads bandaged and carry on.
The other illusion relates to so many people having been taken to court, where 47 were convicted of obstruction and

other offences, as the Home Secretary said; but whenever there is a demonstration of a like character it is the easiest thing in the world to get the ordinary magistrate to give a verdict against the demonstrators and in favour of the police. In the case to which I referred, and in which I was attacked by half-a-dozen police and knocked all over the place so that I was completely soaked with blood, I was arrested and given three months for assaulting the police. It is in the records. I heard the police come into the witness box under oath and tell stories that beat anything that ever appeared from Hans Andersen or Grimm's fairy stories. As a matter of fact, when I came out of prison and visited a certain centre in England, I came along the platform of the station where a lot of the local lads were standing. I was looking at some of their badges but they were looking over my head. Then I took the opportunity of asking whether they were waiting for me. They asked me who I was. I told them, and they gazed at me in consternation. All the time they had been looking up; they had been looking for some sort of Goliath; they had been reading the police evidence. If you get that evidence, which was given in court, you will see that according to it I was knocking big, heavy policemen about like ninepins. Therefore, it is an illusion to think that, because batons are used, there must be hospital cases; it is an illusion to think that, because there were 47 convictions, the police were correct. If it were a question of myself or anyone else trying to make a case against the police, we should have to go round and try to get witnesses and evidence, and find out who the policemen were, and it would be very difficult to make a case.
In the ordinary way, if something happens, we have to take as lenient a view of it as possible. We know that as a rule the police do not like demonstrations, because it means more work for them; it means their being continually on the move. I have been responsible for organising all kinds of demonstrations in Glasgow, and the police never liked to be given the extra work that followed as a consequence. The fact that they did not like the demonstrations and the extra work made them irritable; they are human, though possibly the Home Secretary will tell us that a policeman could not get irritable. We do not mind the irritation;


we quite understand, and, if there is a bit of trouble now and again, we do not make a noise about it. This, however, is not a question of that kind, but one where there are actual accusations of brutality. There was a queue outside, and several people, after it was over, got into the Lobby. A lady who spoke to me in the Lobby came from a constituency in Leeds, having come here to see her Member. She was a Conservative; I have her name and a letter she sent me; and she spoke to me as a result of what she had experienced. The body of people who got into the queue was attacked and broken up, and allegations were made of very great brutality.
That is what we are concerned about, not about the conduct of the average policeman. I have been in all kinds of demonstrations that went through without trouble, and I have been in others that have been broken up with all kinds of fighting with the police, or attacks by the police. That sort of thing can be understood. But here is a case where brutality of a quite unnecessary and violent character is alleged against the police. It is not the ordinary police that are responsible. Some of the leading people in official positions in the police here in London have time and again been shown to be favourable to Fascism, and definitely opposed to Left-Wing demonstrations. Take some of the generals and commanders that are in this House, men who move in the same social circle as the leading officials of the police. Take their attitude on any question that can be described as a "Red" question or a "Red" demonstration. They are ready at any time to show the utmost violence towards it. One can understand, when one sees the reaction of the Members of this House who move in the same social circles as many of these police chiefs in London, what the attitude of these police chiefs towards demonstrations is. Somehow "Red" demonstrations seem to be unlawful in themselves, while Tory demonstrations are quite all right. As long as it is Tory demonstration, in favour of the Prime Minister and the National Government, God bless it, whether it stops the traffic or not. But if it is a demonstration against the Prime Minister and the National Government, anything can happen to it, and every kind of excuse is made.
Here is what the Home Secretary calls a carefully planned demonstration. May I inform him that all our demonstrations are carefully planned and carefully organised, and never at any time has one of our demonstrations caused trouble to anyone unless it has been broken up by the police? I remember a demonstration in Glasgow over which there was a lot of trouble. We were having a demonstration the following week, to protest against that demonstration being broken up. The Sheriff Fiscal sent for me. I went to the Sheriff's office and had a talk with the Fiscal. He said, "Why cannot you run a demonstration without trouble?" I said, "We have had lots of demonstrations; we have had 50,000 or 80,000 people in the streets of Glasgow, without the slightest trouble. We will run a demonstration any day of the week, and if you keep the policemen in the background there will not be the slightest possibility of trouble." We can organise demonstrations and carry them through without any trouble.
I was at a big demonstration in Sheffield, and we marched through the streets to end up at the City Hall, and there was not a policeman to be seen anywhere. The Chief Constable of Sheffield was of opinion that the Communists of Sheffield were quite capable of organising and taking care of the demonstration. It is many of the chiefs of police, and not the policemen themselves, who have the—what was the Home Secretary's term?—"jitterbugs" whenever there is a "Red" demonstration proposed. We decided to have a demonstration down here. We organised it at Chenies Street. There is an order that there shall be no marching within a mile of the House of Commons, so there was no marching. Have the people a right to gather outside this House? I ask the Home Secretary, did the citizens of London gather outside here some time ago? After the Munich affair? The place was black with them. But they were cheering the Prime Minister.

Sir S. Hoare: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gallacher: They have the blessing of the Home Secretary. If the generals and commanders were here, they would have their blessing as well. Nice respectable citizens, mistakenly applauding the Prime Minister and the National Government, are allowed to gather in front of


the House of Commons; but working-class people who are prepared to take a stand against the Prime Minister and the National Government are classified as "Red" and that is sufficient to warrant any kind of treatment. Why did not they drive the crowd away when they were cheering the Prime Minister?—[An HON. MEMBER: "It wasn't organised."]—They came down in masses for the specific, concerted, purpose of supporting the National Government. And these other people came down to Parliament Square for the specific purpose of opposing the National Government. But it seems that while it is permissible to come down to demonstrate in favour of the National Government, it is a different thing to come down against them.
The demonstration was carefully organised, and there was no need whatever for police interference, and no need for police brutality, and the very allegations of brutality that have been made are sufficient justification for an inquiry. The Home Secretary says that the noise was so loud—it is a terrible thing to have noise outside this House—that some Members went out to see what was the matter. Well, I challenge the Home Secretary. I challenge those who talk so glibly about preserving the right of Members to go to

and fro on their duties in the House of Commons, to produce one Member of the House who that night, was affected in any way, either going to or coming from the House of Commons. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman cannot. This is only raising a superficial bogy.
These people were quite justified in demonstrating their hostility to the National Government, and there was no need to interfere with them while they were doing that. The charge against the police is made from many sources. I have met many of the people who are affected, and I have had letters, and in view of the whole circumstances of the treatment of the public on that occasion I would support the demand that the Home Secretary should grant a full inquiry. The police themselves deserve it as a right in view of the fact that the allegations are made, and certainly the public are entitled to an inquiry in order to be satisfied that when they demonstrate they can do so with full confidence that the police—who are supposed to protect the rights of the citizens—will not be allowed to use any brutality towards them.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.